This week’s readings held a lot of information about both cognitive and situative perspectives on learning. However, I found the messaging of the authors to be of particular interest within each article. I think by focusing on this aspect of the debate, I can hopefully say something without repeating what the authors stated and add my own sense about what was shared. Overall, I thought about what occurred in the readings this week as a “power struggle.” Interestingly, while cognitive perspectives had more power historically, the authors of this paper wrote in a way that portrayed the desire to quash the usurper (situative perspectives).
In the abstract of their article, Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1996) stated, “… we cite empirical literature to show that the claims are overstated and that some of the educational implications that have been taken from this claims are misguided” (p. 5) about situated perspectives of learning. This indicates, in very direct terms, that the authors do not believe research from a situative perspective is useful in any manner. In fact, they approach calling it frivolous verging on irresponsible. Overall, their article, in my eyes, attempted to debunk a lot of the claims within situative perspectives on learning while advocating that cognitive approaches can answer the questions posed by situative perspectives better. Interestingly, a lot of the evidence they provided seemed to support a broader view of learning encompassed by situative perspectives. For example, on page 8 they detail how classroom instruction for police officers does not translate to the job. The authors argue that it is more about the design of the learning environment and problems of the job rather than an issue with abstraction. From what I understand, abstraction in a situative perspective, is acceptable as long as the abstract instruction is contextualized. Essentially, a situative perspective adds more to what cognitivist already think about. If taking a situative stance, researchers are now open to thinking about what practices contribute to being a police officer and can design environments that support learning whether it includes abstraction or not. Additionally, the instruction would be determined by the types of interactions the instruction is looking to evoke rather than attempting to guess how to build a mental construction that can only be measured by examining performance any way. This barrier of measurement, in my opinion, is decreased significantly when thinking about learning as situative because learning is measured by participation not “performance” in the way that cognitivists would refer to it as.
In response, Greeno (1997), uses some of the above ideas to demonstrate that the situative perspective actually incorporates cognitive positions into its framework but chooses to orient the questions differently. While clearly attempting to separate and privilege situative learning from cognitive perspectives on learning, Greeno (1997), never outright stated that cognitive perspectives were wrong. Rhetorically, what I gained was that cognitive perspectives were merely not seeing the whole picture (or at least a specific parts of it) versus Anderson et al.’s (1996) position that situative learning was “misguided.” Right from the start, Greeno (1997) discussed the question around generality by generating two questions that were similar, yet significantly different. Even Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1997) stated, “…we fail to see the difference between these questions…” (p. 19) about the questions. Anderson et al. (1997) boil the difference down to language. While this is true because the questions did contain different words, this avoids the issue at play entirely in my eyes; an attempt I think aimed at brushing off the “pesky” other. However, when I sat back to think about the differences in the questions Greeno (1997) presented, the implication was radical. Cognitive folks see knowledge acting on a task, while those in the situative camp see knowledge and activity as inseparable. This dramatically expands how one thinks about learning and how one can observe learning. Ultimately, the exchange in the 1997 articles consisted of Greeno stating, “we see the value in this perspective (cognitive), but think it can be better and built upon,” while Anderson et al. took a “your wrong and just give it up” approach.
While I think the “coming together” article was helpful to frame both issues, I want to turn my attention towards the chapter by Greeno (2006). This chapter really clearly framed the situative perspective for me while also showing what has happened to this debate; both sides see value in the other but cognitive folks now need to see situative folks as a legitimate participant in the conversation around learning. Interestingly enough, in engaging in a practice within the community of educational research, learning happened for all parties that is evident in the chapter. This learning is very clear as both parties responded in a written conversation and negotiated their ideas. So, while I do tend to fall more on the situative side of things because, “It combines the strengths of each of these approaches with the goal of better understanding how learning occurs…” (Greeno, 2006, p. 91), I believe both perspectives have a role to play. From what I can see both ask different questions that can have value in adding to the conversation about how to improve education as a whole and understanding how people learn.
References:
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Chapter 6: Learning in Activity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on Learning, Thinking, and Activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13.
Anderson, J.R, Reder, L.M., Simon, H. . (1997). Rejoinder: Situative versus Cognitive Perspectives: Form versus Substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18–21.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
Anderson, R. A., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated Learning and Education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
JD – I appreciate that you say that the cognitive side “had more power historically” as I did not know that! I think the provides some needed context, and as Ashwin also commented, I think that makes Anderson et al. come off as immature. Many of the claims that they attributed to situated learning seemed unfair and inaccurate, even to me with the relatively small amount that I know of learning theories. I definitely felt there was a significant difference between how the authors felt about the other camp. Greeno consistently stated the value of the cognitive perspective, and how it can be incorporated into the situated learning approach.
Hi JD,
Reality TV just about sums it up. Give them a pair of boxing gloves and a stage in Las Vegas and we have a main event on the cards, albeit a pretty terrible one.
I think Anderson et al are pretty immature in their dismissal of the situative perspective and they fail to see the utility and enormous practical implications that situative analysis of learning situations can provide. I agree with you in that the debate boils down to a definiton of what each school considers as learning and the differences between them are never reconciled by the two sides in the debate. This makes me wonder if a synthesis is even possible. I certainly hope we attempt it over the next few weeks in the classroom.