Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2016
  • Online publication date: February 2016

4 - Some Early Contributions to the Situative Perspective on Learning and Cognition

from PART 1 - PAST

Summary

This chapter reviews some contributions that we believe shed light on the emergence of a perspective – we refer to it as a situative perspective (Greeno & Engeström, 2014) – that has been a significant influence in the learning sciences during its first quarter of a century since it emerged as an interdisciplinary field in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The situative approach arose in response to perceived weaknesses in the cognitive theory of information processing, which had been the dominant theory of learning and cognition in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, the situative approach and the cognitivist approach both continue to remain influential in learning sciences research, although we believe the situative approach is more powerful and is now more widely used by learning scientists than a purely cognitivist approach.

The Cognitive Theory of Information Processing

In the mid-1980s, a cognitive theory of information processing was the leading perspective in the scientific study of cognition and learning. The scope of cognitive information processing theory is broad, as documented by Barsalou (1992), Lindsay and Norman (1977), Neisser (1967), and many others. The cognitive theory of information processing emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and by the 1980s most scholars studying education and learning had acknowledged that it was a significant advance beyond the previously prevalent approaches of associationist theory and behaviorism. One significant advantage was the capability of modeling general patterns of information to represent schemata that students could acquire for solving problems and understanding concepts in much more detail than had been possible previously (cf. Greeno et al., 1978). For example, when Mayer and Greeno compared the learning outcomes of two kinds of instruction of the binomial formula – one more conceptual and the other more procedural – their explanation was limited to a hypothesis that an associative structure was less strongly connected internally in the procedural version and more strongly connected externally (that is, with other concepts) in the conceptual version. Hypotheses such as this one could be represented much more specifically with the theoretical methods and concepts of information-processing cognitive science (examples were reported and discussed in Greeno, 1983).

Two strands of the cognitivist research program are especially relevant to the development of a situative perspective: the theory of problem solving and the theory of language understanding.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996, May). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Clancey, W. J., Sachs, P., Sierhuis, M., & van Hoof, R. (1998). BRAHMS: Simulating practice for work systems design.International Journal Human- Computer Studies, 49, 831–865.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.
Cole, M., Griffen, P., & The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (1987). Contextual factors in education.Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189.
Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative transfer: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 451–498.
Engle, R. A. (2012). The productive disciplinary engagement framework. In Dai, D. Y. (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings (pp. 161–200). New York: Routledge.
Engle, R. A., Nguyen, P. D., & Mendelson, A. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instructional Science, 39, 603–628.
Fraser, B. J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4), 307–327.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception.Hillsdale, NJ: Laawrence Erlbaum.
Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., & the Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project. (2002). Middle school mathematics: What every parent should know and can do.Stanford University.
Greeno, J. G. (1978). A study in problem solving. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 1.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1983). Forms of understanding in mathematical problem solving. In Paris, S. G., Olson, G.M., & Stevenson, H. W. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44(2), 134–141.
Greeno, J. G. (1992). Mathematical and scientific thinking in classrooms and other situations. In Halpern, D. (Ed.), Enhancement of higher–order thinking in science and mathematics education (pp. 39–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1997, January/February). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable, positioning and connected general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 537–547.
Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 41–71). New York: Springer.
Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. H. (2014). Learning in activity. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 128–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G., James, C. T., DaPolito, F., & Polson, P. G. (1978). Organization and association. In J. G. Greeno (Ed.), Associative learning: A cognitive analysis (pp. 10–28). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Greeno, J. G., Magone, M. E. & Chaiklin, S. (1979). Theory of constructions and set in problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 7, 445–46l.
Greeno, J. G., McDermott, R., Cole, K., Engle, R. A., Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., Lauman, B., & Linde, C. (1999). Research, reform, and aims in education: Modes of action in search of each other. In Lagemann, E. & Shulman, L. (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 299–335). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greeno, J. G., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: A response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 49–60.
Greeno, J. G., & the Middle-School Mathematics through Applications Project (MMAP) Group (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.
Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.
Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.
Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 163–182.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R. (Eds.). (1987). Production system models of learning and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of the scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, 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.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human information processing. New York: Academic.
Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.
Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 431–449.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nasir, N. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61.
Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 21–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving, Vol. 104, No. 9. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nilsson, N. J. (1971), Problem-solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nokes, T. J., Schunn, C. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2010). Problem solving and human expertise. In Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGraw, B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education, Vol. 5 (pp. 265–272). Oxford: Elsevier.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Meade, M. L., & Morrow, D. G. (2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 32–58.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Mestre, J. (2013). Toward a model of transfer as sense-making. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 184–207.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.
Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities and of solving problems. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 49–101.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (Eds.), Cognition, perception and language, Vol. 2. (pp. 679–744). Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed., Damon, W. (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'Malley, C. E. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Schank, R. C. (1973). Identification of conceptualizations underlying natual langage, In Schank, R. C. & Colby, K. M. (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 187–247). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
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.
Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 71–90.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In Posner, M. I. (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 526–579). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press.
Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winograd, T. (1973). A procedural model of language understanding. In Schank, R. C. & Colby, K. M. (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 152–186). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.