This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cobb, P. Articles by Bowers, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Cognitive and Situated Learning Perspectives in Theory and Practice

The Department of Teaching and Learning at Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203. His specialty is mathematics education

Janet Bowers, assistant professor of mathematics education

The Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University, 6475 Alvarado Road, Suite 206, San Diego, CA 92120. She specializes in mathematics education

In their recent exchange, Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1996 Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1997) and Greeno (1997) frame the conflicts between cognitive theory and situated learning theory in terms of issues that are primarily of interest to educational psychologists. We attempt to broaden the debate by approaching this discussion of perspectives against the background of our concerns as educators who engage in classroom-based research and instructional design in collaboration with teachers. We first delineate the underlying differences between the two perspectives by distinguishing their central organizing metaphors. We then argue that the contrast between the two perspectives cannot be reduced to that of choosing between the individual and the social collective as the primary unit of analysis. Against this background, we compare the situated viewpoint we find useful in our work with the cognitive approach advocated by Anderson et al. by focusing on their treatments of meaning and instructional goals. Finally, we consider the potential contributions of the two perspectives to instructional practice by contrasting their differing formulations of the relationship between theory and practice.

Educational Researcher, Vol. 28, No. 2, 4-15 (1999)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X028002004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. S. Nasir, V. Hand, and E. V. Taylor Culture and Mathematics in School: Boundaries Between "Cultural" and "Domain" Knowledge in the Mathematics Classroom and Beyond Review of Research in Education, February 1, 2008; 32(1): 187 - 240. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Borko Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain Educational Researcher, November 1, 2004; 33(8): 3 - 15. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Popkewitz The Alchemy of the Mathematics Curriculum: Inscriptions and the Fabrication of the Child American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2004; 41(1): 3 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. de Kock, P. Sleegers, and M. J. M. Voeten New Learning and the Classification of Learning Environments in Secondary Education Review of Educational Research, January 1, 2004; 74(2): 141 - 170. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Paavola, L. Lipponen, and K. Hakkarainen Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning Review of Educational Research, January 1, 2004; 74(4): 557 - 576. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. T. PUTNAM and H. BORKO What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say About Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, January 1, 2000; 29(1): 4 - 15. [PDF]