Situative Versus Cognitive Perspectives: Form Versus Substance (1997)

ames Greeno has written a reply to our recently published challenge (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996) to the soundness of many educational implications that ave been drawn from the movement. Greeno's response (p. 5, this issue) has largely taken the discussion onto a more abstract plane rather than disp u t i n g our recommendations for educational practice. Along with his meta-level discussion, he has described several results and made a number of comments that help to clarify the educational issues. Greeno acknowledges the persuasiveness of our evidence for our findings and reco~n~endatf6~ns, and agrees that there is a consensus between the cognitive and situated perspectives on certain important educational issues. So we want to begin our response by emphasizing those issues on which we all seem to be in a ~ 1. Learning need not be bound to t h e ~ s i t u a t i o n of its application, i n s t r u c t ~ ~ e n g ~ 6 ~ e ~ fr0-m the classroom to world situations. Greeno cites a list of studies from the situated camp which are consistent with this conclusion. We no longer have to contemplate abandoning the classroom but can focus our attention on those factors that promote transfer from one situation to other situations. Our original paper contained pointers to the abundant research in cognitive psychology describing and examining these factors. 2. Knowledge can indeed transfer between different sorts of tasks. Again Greeno Cites situated papers which, if they do not provide new evidence for this proposition, at least accept it. Thus, we can aspire to see mathematics education transfer to science, engineering, and jobs which require it. We need not teach every different competence anew. Again, our original paper provided references to the very powerful empirical and theoretical base that has developed in cognitive psychology for understanding such transfer. 3. Abstract instruction can be very effectiv e a n d one need not teach everything in concrete, almost vocational settings. Greeno points out some looseness in our use of the terms concrete and specific. If we caused any confusion we apologize, but apparently it is not in dispute that real value is to be found in the abstractions that students are taught in school. Again, the issue is how one makes abstract instruction effective, and again we cited cognitive research addressed to this question. 4. Instruction need not take place 0nlyin c_omplex~social situations. There is great value as well in instruction that focuses on parts of a competence and learning that occurs individually. Again, the issue is when and where to use what type of instruction, and again we can point to cognitive research that addresses these questions. However, much more research is needed on the question of when group learning is valuable in the classroom. Most of the research on group learning has been restricted to adult populations learning job-like skills. While important reforms may be needed in American education, the consensus seems to be that these reforms are not in the direction of turning the classroom into a workplace; there is merit in the powerful abstract intellectual tools that have been developed throughout human history. There certainly are issues of how to teach mastery of these tools effectively, and cognitive psychology provides a great J'deal of guidance here. Of course, many issues arise in the classroom that psychology cannot yet answer. However, here teachers should look to their common sense and professional experience for the answers--not to recommendations, unsubstantiated by empirical research, that claim a basis in situated learning. If there is this broad consensus~ then is there anything left to argue about? Greeno's a r t icle~djcates that he thinks so. Much of the argument is about the language that is appropriate for describing these issues. It is clear~T~IGreeno believes that there is something significant in these linguistic choices. Unfortunately, the situated language that he prefers often has a fuzziness that has led many persons who employ it to b e ~ h e four points discussed above are not settled by the evidence, but are still at issue. We also find on just a few occasions that Greeno's attempt to restate the cognitive position in his own words mischaracterizes that position, and we will attempt here to correct these mischaracterizations. Greeno sometimes suggests that we have not understood the situated position. That is certainly a possibility, but the alternative possibility is that we