Situated Competence

In the late 1980’s situated cognition began to appear along with research in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Situated cognition involves three central theses: (1) learning occurs not only in the brain but also in the body, (2) learning incorporates the socio-cultural context, and (3) the boundaries of learning extend beyond the individual (Robbins & Aydede, 2009). This holistic approach acknowledges that human cognition involves a number of complex systems that include the brain, the body, the interpersonal, the physical space, and so on that are situated in time and space (Clancey, 2009; Gallagher, 2009). Learning is therefore not located within the individual mind but is located within unique and complex participation frameworks. 

The situated approach to learning aligns with cybernetics and system thinking (Clancey, 2009). System theorists also agree that performance is coupled to the environment or context. A system is defined as interconnected parts that are combined in a unique but specific arrangement that function as a whole. “Behaviour depends on how the parts are connected rather than what the parts are” (O’Connor & McDermott, 1997, p. 3) and if the structure is changed, the behavior will change. This perspective is in direct contrast with behaviorism, which believes the individual is solely in control of their behavior and this behavior can be changed through controlled, stimulus-response relationships of reward and punishment. Cybernetics and system theories believe behavior is connected to the system through causal relationships, or feedback loops. Therefore, action changes the system, which in turn changes the action.

From the situated cognitive perspective, people solve problems within the context and frameworks that created them using the tools and artifacts that these specific contexts and frameworks provide. As knowledge is acquired, we experience enculturation and enrichment, which then changes the situation that surrounds us. Situated cognition was influenced by Vygotsky’s theory of the “zone of proximal development” (Clancey, 2009). Vygotsky (1978) explained how independent problem solving by children, that is slightly too difficult for the child, can result in their development when assistance is provided by an adult or other, more experienced peers. This assistance bridged actual abilities with potential abilities. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe this process as cycles of assimilation and generation. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1988) observed a helical learning process between the student (novice) and the teacher (expert) in educational settings that assimilate the student into practice. As we learn different artifacts become more salient to us. We are able to recognize more tools and resources in our environment that can assist us and in turn, we adapt our tools to assist us in our problem solving (Kirsch, 2009). Vygotsky (1978) believed that individuals could continue to develop their capacity and expand their range of competence through this type of scaffolding across a lifespan.

“Learning is always situated” (Sawyer & Greeno, 2009, p. 148) and with situated cognition “there is very little observable teaching; the more basic phenomenon is learning” (Lave & Wenger, 1991/2003, p. 92). Situativity in education is intent on transforming both individuals and their actions through pedagogical problem solving (Sawyer & Greeno, 2009). The problems selected should illustrate the range of legitimate solution methods and techniques used in theory and practice. The expert recognizes the legitimacy of the novice’s implicit knowledge and models his or her expertise while also using coaching and time for practice and reflection to afford the novice’s generation of unique solution paths. The problems become increasingly complex so that the novice can practice transferring and evolving these methods and techniques to other problems. The artifacts, or tools used, which are embedded with the historical knowledge of practice, will also assimilate the newcomer into the local practice and larger profession.

References

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.  (1988). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Institute for Research on Learning. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Downloaded from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a204690.pdf

Clancey, W.J. (2009). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 11-34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gallagher, S. (2009). Philosophical antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 35-51). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kirsch, D. (2009). Problem solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 264-306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991/2003). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

O’Connor, J. & McDermott, I. (1997). The art of systems thinking. San Francisco, CA: Thorsons.

Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sawyer, R.K. & Greeno, J.G. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347-367). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole,V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.