Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:43:13.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Learning in Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

G. James Greeno
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses a program of research in the learning sciences that I call “situative.” The defining characteristic of a situative approach is that instead of focusing on individual learners, the main focus of analysis is on activity systems: complex social organizations containing learners, teachers, curriculum materials, software tools, and the physical environment. Over the decades, many psychologists have advocated a study of these larger systems (Dewey, 1896, 1929/1958; Lewin, 1935, 1946/1997; Mead, 1934; Vygotsky, 1987), although they remained outside the mainstream of psychology, which instead focused on individuals. Situative analyses include hypotheses about principles of coordination that support communication and reasoning in activity systems, including construction of meaning and understanding.

Other terms for the perspective I refer to as situative include sociocultural psychology (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 1995), activity theory (Engeström, 1993; 1999), distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995a), and ecological psychology (Gibson, 1979; Reed, 1996). I use the term “situative” because I was introduced to the perspective by scholars who referred to their perspective as situated action (Suchman, 1985), situated cognition (Lave, 1988), or situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). I prefer the term “situative,” a modifier of “perspective,” “analysis,” or “theory,” to “situated,” used to modify “action,” “cognition,” or “learning,” because the latter adjective invites a misconception: that some instances of action, cognition, or learning are situated and others are not. During the 1980s and 1990s these scholars and others provided analyses in which concepts of cognition and learning are relocated at the level of activity systems.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In Phillips, D. C. (Ed.), Constructivism in education, opinions and second opinions on controversial issues, ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 193–224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barab, S., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 76–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–360.CrossRef
Beach, K. (1995). Activity as a mediator of sociocultural change and individual development: The case of school-work transition in Nepal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellak, A. A., Kliebard, H., Hyman, R., & Smith, F. (1966). Language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning, revised and expanded edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice(pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. (1989). Contributions to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Hawkins, J., & Carver, S. M. (1991). A cognitive apprenticeship for disadvantaged students. In Means, B., Chelemer, C. & Knapp, M. S. (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1978). How we think. In How we think and selected essays, 1910–1911, The middle works of John Dewey, 1899–1924, volume 6 (Boydston, Jo Ann, ed.) (pp. 177–356). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press (originally published 1910).Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover (original work published 1929).Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1990). Adolescent social categories: Information and science learning. In Gardner, M., Greeno, J. G., Reif, F., Schoenfeld, A. H., Sessa, A., & Stage, E. (Eds.), Toward a scientific practice of science education (pp. 203–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engestrtöm, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction. 20, 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof: A description and evaluation of certain procedures used in a senior high school to develop an understanding of the nature of proof, the thirteenth yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Fujimura, J. H. (1996). Crafting science: A sociohistory of the quest for the genetics of cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. V. (1996). Mediating microworlds: Collaboration on high school science activities. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emegting paradigm (pp. 45–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldman, S., & Moschkovich, J. (1995). Environments for collaborating mathematically: The middle-school mathematics through applications project. CSCL '95 Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1995). Understanding concepts in activity. In Weaver, C. A. III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 65–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (2003, November). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. Paper presented at a workshop, “Theorizing learning practice,” University of Illinois.
Greeno, J. G., & Engle, R. A. (1995). Combining analyses of cognitive processes, meanings, and social participation: Understanding symbolic representation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., & the Middle-school Mathematics through Applications Project Group (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. K. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gresalfi, M. S. (2004). Taking up opportunities to learn: Examining the construction of mathematical identities in middle school classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey's cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R., & Rubin, A. (1998). There's five little notches in here: Dilemmas in teaching and learning the conventional structure of rate. In Greeno, J. G. & Goldman, S. V. (Eds), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 189–235). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 31–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rosa, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated cognition: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1997). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In Resolving social conflicts & Field theory in social science (pp. 337–381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Originally published 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff/Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, N. (2002). Maxwell and the “method of physical analogy”: Model-based reasoning, generic abstraction, and conceptual change. In Malament, D. (Ed.), Reading natural philosophy: Essays in the history and philosophy of science and mathematics. Lasalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social and cultural dimensions. In Gorman, M., Tweney, R., Gooding, D., & Kincannon, A. (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J., Kurz-Milcke, E., Newstetter, W. C., & Davies, J. (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, d. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857–862). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997) Collaborative discovery ini a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370–394). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, E. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reiner, M., Pea, R. D., & Shulman, D. J. (1995). Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. Journal of science education and technology, 4, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1995). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxe, G. (1990). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M, (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflections on doing and teaching mathematics. In Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J. L., Yarushalmy, M., & Wilson, B. (1993). The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1985). Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, volume 1: Problems of general psychology. (Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A. S., Eds.). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Waterman, M. W. (2004). The joint achievement of group expertise and autonomy. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Learning in Activity
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Learning in Activity
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Learning in Activity
  • Edited by R. Keith Sawyer, Washington University, St Louis
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.007
Available formats
×