Talk:Situated cognition

Comments

I think the affordance/effectivities section is too long. It should be edited down. Furthermore I think less in text citation should occur so it reads as a definition rather than a biography of GibsonJgmac1106 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited "new" from "new movement", as Situated cognition has been around for decades.

It would appear the page is missing a "Critique" section. If I were to assign something for a final effort/addition, it might be that. GNA Garcia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have verbal permission from Dr. Michael Young (University of Connecticut) to use his image/model on this page. Awaiting written permission to update on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have written permission via email, sent to permissionsVanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

I came to this article after it was linked to Community of practice. Aside from the fact that it is poorly laid out (the introduction for example) it is clearly a POV article for a particular take on a theory. Historical context is missing, some of the quoted sources (Dewy for example) are being tacked onto an exposition of an ideology. A quick web search provides much better and more balanced descriptions. Now its not my field and I have other pages that I more interested in, but this needs editors who understand the subject to do some drastic editing work. The table is a good example of the point. The "good stuff" is the left and the "evil bad stuff" is on the right with an either/or presentation rather situating the approach in a much wider and more diverse context. It requires drastic editing with a reduction in advocacy for a POV and a greater focus on neutrality. --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal

In a special issue of the peer reviewed journal, Cognitive Science (1993) 17 (1), the major proponents of the two positions contrasted in the Table debated the issues of situated versus represented knowledge. This entry stays true to the issues and positions taken in that scholarly literature, and does not paint either position as "good or bad" as the Dispute above alleges. Instead a contrast is presented between what is taken as "common knowledge" about topics such as intelligence, motivation, and learning... commonly conceived and in accord with the Cognitivist Information Processing literature... contrasted with the less common notions of situated cognition. This is presented to aid the reader and is not unfair or biased toward either side. The disputer (above) is recommended to read the Cognitive Science special issue on the topic and reconsider their dispute with the entry.

Firstly please sign your entries and do not delete a POV tag until it has been debated here. The language of the table presented clearly lays out a "good" side and a "bad" side, and also has elements of a stawman fallacy about it. Common knowledge is by no means a representative presentation of alternative views in either the scientific or popular literature. A peer reviewed journal may contrast two perspectives, but a wikipedia article requires more than two perspectives to be presented. Situated cognition would need to be presented within a wider field of studies in the field that this crude either/or approach. I suggest you do that, and when its complete the POV label can be happily removed. --Snowded (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...Secondly, Snowded is hardly a signature. The language of the table clearly lays out two alternative prespectives, no value judgments are presented on either side. If you would like to dispute language use in the table, please reference specific lines or phrases you wish to dispute as placing "good" or "bad" value on the topic. Common knowledge is not presented here... a cognitivist information process view, which is consistent with common knowledge and common usage of terms like "memory" and "remembering" are given. If you ask most people on the street their view of memory, it will include storage and retrieval, as does the information processing model of cognition, citing Short term Store (STS), Working memory, Long Term Memory, and retrieval processes. There is no written law that says a Wikipedia entry must do any more than present the definition of the terms... no multiple perspectives required. The authors have presented the most common alternative view of memory and cognition in order to clarify the meaning of Situated Cognition, and this echoes the contrasts that have been made in the literature that is cited. This so called "crude" approach is consistent with the scholarly literature, including common texts used in Cognition, and Learning, such as Driscoll,2004 "Psychology of Learning for Instruction." Thirdly, Wikikpedia entries are no place to give both the definition of a term and multiple related perspectives of memory and cognition. That's what textbooks on the subject do. I suggest you compose specific alternative text you wish to dispute and offer it as a more balanced alternative for all to consider, leaving the focus of this entry on Situated Cognition and not on it's alternatives that are clearly presented under thier own separate entries.

Thirdly, the POV tag was removed mainly because it is NOT the entirety of the entry that you have questioned, but the balance of the Table, so the POV tag should be on that section, not calling into question the content of the entire entry. Your perception of the tone of the table is not enough to constitute a legitimate challenge. Please be specific about lines or phrases you wish to challenge, and provide references to support your position, as has been done in the article and in the response to your challenge.

--UConnMike (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem used to the Wikipedia. Firstly I asked you to sign your comment using four~ (its a option on the menu bar) nothing to do with the signature itself, its normal Wikipedia procedure. You also need to understand that you cannot reverse a tag until it has been discussed just because you don't agree with it.

As to the POC tag, the table is an illustration of an article which clearly advocates a particular position. The Wikipedia cannot replace a text book, but it can place a theory in a wider context. At the moment this article does not and it needs improving. Part of that improvement is a description of the approach in the wider context of cognitive science. You might for example want to talk about the work of Deacon in the co-evolution of the brain and language (to take but one of many possible examples). I will come back when I have more time on the specific language. In the meantime you might want to think about improving the article rather than defending something which is close to a stub. --Snowded (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I must add to this discussion and make a comment about the table, because I actually worked on parts of it. On the left side, I used passages from relevant situated cognition texts, and on the right side, I used passages from relevant widely-used educational psychology texts. I am confused why you say one side is 'good' or 'evil.' For the info. processing side, I took out exact quotes that discussed the topics. I did not pick out partial sentences to present a 'negative' side, nor was it my intention to present a negative side of info-processing. I simply selected information from the text that defined the specified topic in the table. How can that possibly be 'evil'? How can obtaining quotes from widely-used educational psychology textbooks be considered evil? Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(as an aside I put the colons in for you) Let me respond on this. My main objection to the article is that it positions situated cognition against what it calls "cognitivist approaches rather than (as a good Wikipedia article should) position situated cognition in a wider context, and also identify some of the different approaches within that generic label. The article presents it as a unified field. The good and evil quote was not literally intended to say that something is evil (although I think information processing models have had evil outcomes) but to challenge the either/or approach. The language comes across as the new way of thinking is on the left, the old discredited way on the right and unnecessarily stereotyped. For example the section on problem solving. The wider context is the most critical deficiency in the article. The section on mind-brain identity for example is very weak. It does not talk about some of the modern work on cognition as a distributed function (well summarised in "Neither Brain nor Ghost" by Rockwell. There is no reference anywhere to the Churchlands (and connectivism et al. No reference to the work of Andy Clark. The article needs a lot of work, at the moment it presents two options in a complex field. --Snowded (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded.. you might note that right above your 13 May comment.. I did "sign" the entry... so my familiarity with the process was not in doubt except perhaps for the less observant. Next.. the tag was removed AFTER several postings explaining and discussing it's issues. It will be removed again on the same basis.. no specifics about the bias of the entire article have been raised, so the tag should be place where the issues are.. at the Table. And since you have not as yet contributed even the specifics of the language you are disputed, I might provide you with this sound advice... "think about improving the article rather than demeaning it with personal preference and no evidence or specifics.. that will allow more concrete scholarly dialog to proceed, rather than at the level of broad accusations about bias without specifics. --64.252.49.107 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As it happens you edited this while I was making the above contribution. You do seem to be ignorant of Wikipedia process. Your comment does not have your user ID (and I am always suspicious of people who hide behind IP addresses). Secondly you might try and spend some time in the sandpit to learning editing conventions. That aside you have to allow people to contribute in reasonable timescales and allow a discussion to take place. I said in my earlier comment that I would make some specific comments when I had time which was today. Try and avoid patronising advice it does you little credit. What is needed here is a discussion of what is needed to improve the article and then some work to do it. Not an unthinking assertion of the original. --Snowded (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I do not think that we need to present situated cognition in a wider context as you have suggested. Why must we talk about Churchland or Andy Clark? You are asking us to present numerous other perspectives and theories on a SITUATED COGNITION page. The reason for creating a table was simply to show differences and similarities between situated cognition and information processing, it is a way for readers to understand (by comparison) what situated cognition is. Thus, we do not need to compare situated cognition with multiple theories in order for them to understand what it is. If you look at other Wikipedia pages, I doubt they compare the information on one page with multiple other perspectives or theories. They do not need to do so in order for the page to remain neutral. It would be too much information and redundant. If a reader wants to know about Churchlands and Andy Clark, he should go to one of those pages on Wikipedia. He should not be looking for that information on a SITUATED COGNITION page. Wikipedia is not about comparing/contrasting all on one page, it is about presenting information on the topic, so that someone can learn more about it. Thus, the page provides relevant literature and research on situated cognition NOT Churchlands or Andy Clark. Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please learn to use indents... If you just want to describe situated cognition without any comparisons then fine (although it will be a poor article. In that case remove the table, describe the features and avoid any comparison. Information processing models have been largely discredited which is fine, but there is no logic in contrasting with that on its on - why not behaviourism as well? By a single contrast with a largely discredited view you justify the POV label. --Snowded

(talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded...Please give at least 1 citation for your assertion that the "info processing models have been largely discredited"... that is an interesting assertion. Is that verified by any other scholarly literature or is that just another one of your opinions you wish to impose on this post. The tag has once again been removed and its return is bordering on malicious, without some concrete support for any of your opinions about the article. 3 of the 4 readers who have posted on this issue disagree with your opinion, and you have given not a single scholarly citation in support of your assertion. This is not a discussion of 2 positions, it is one person asserting their will on this post, and it should stop. If you value the Wikipedia process as it seems you do, then you should honor this process. Your contention was voiced, it was discussed, and no one but you has spoken in favor of the bias tag. It would seem the bias you see in this text, which like many other works defining Situated Cognition, draws a contrast with a widely understood and dominant theory of how we think and learn, namely the cognitivist information processing theory of John R. Anderson or Herb Simon, is more your own bias, not that of the entry. Please consider reviewing the previously cited issue of Cognitive Science 1993 [1] and while your discussion of this should continue and is welcome, your unilateral imposition of the bias tag is becoming dissonant with your respect for the Wikipedia process. I also would advise you not to presume the personal experiences of the posters who disagree with you, as your own experience in this area might be called into question as a result.

Since many of the point - counterpoints in this discussion have been largely confrontational, let me say Snowded, your last post of 20 May does make a positive contribution. A contrast in the table that also includes mainstream or radical Behaviourism would be valuable to accomplish what the authors intended with the Table, namely contrasts with commonly held views of cognition, in order to clarify the unique attributes of Situated Cognition. I would ask the authors to consider this, and tell us in this discussion if it was space limitations that guided their decision to only include the prototypic Info Processing view (as most intro to learning theory texts do include info process and behaviorism). Again this is an issue SOLELY with the table and not an issue of bias throughout the entirety of the article either...so I would suggest return of the bias tag, if done, should focus on this issue alone. Respectfully, --UConnMike (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)--64.252.49.107 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly can i yet again suggest that contributors to the discussion spend some time on the sandpit and learn some of the conventions of editing.

Secondly lets look at the process here. Since I placed the POV tag on this two or possible three authors have responded generally on a long time interval. Venessa Joy made one comment to which I have responded (as yet without a reply). 64.252.49.107 enters on each occasion to remove the POV tag, and on this occasion also provides a response which is then amended by UConnMike. It is not clear to me if 64.252.49.107 and UConnMike are the same person. If they are different then UConnMike should not amend 64.252.49.107 text, if they are the same then there are two editors arguing against the POV label and one for which hardly represents an agreement or justification for removing the POV tag. I get a sense of naiveté here in respect of the WIkipedia so while I have reinstated the POV tag for the moment I have not reported it's removal as vandalism.

Thirdly lets look at the subject. My point is not to assert a position, but to argue that the article needed to show many positions and the context of the theory. To contrast an approach only with information processing models is biased. I provided several examples of scholars whose work should be cited in my response. I could add Freeman and Deacon to those if you want alternatives to information processing models which are not within the boundaries of situated cognition as described in this article. The table dominates the article and the POV tag thus applies. One option might be to replace the table with a summary of the position v a particular perspective on information processing models and put a task list up front on the need to add further paragraphs. If those was done then removing the POV tag would make sense and the article would be moving in the right direction.

Fourthly to UConnMIke and/or 64.252.49.107 would you please reduce the aggression and the false statements. At the moment I have expressed a valid view with multiple citations. You and possible one other are arguing a case on the basis of one special edition of a journal. To say that I am bordering on the malicious and have not given a single citation is a plain untruth. It smacks a bit of a professor too used to getting their own way and used to the aggressive put down of an under graduate student who has dared to challenge authority. Please stop it and (i) confirm if the two IDs are the same person, and (ii) deal with the above points and if necessary move to a vote summary of positions before removing the PoV tag again. --Snowded (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Snowded post without a single citation or academic argument, and the continued contention concerning the claim of bias is that a definitional piece on situated cognition does not, in the same article, define all the alternative theories as well. This is clearly absurd on its surface, so cannot be the purpose of the bias assertion. If this claim were true, then every psychology wikipedia entry that does not define all other alternatives is equally biased... the definition of Information Processes does not include a definition of Situated Cognition, so is, by Snowded's thinking, terribly biased. But since this cannot be true, instead, I would now assert, after Snowded's repeated claims have lingered for weeks, that indeed there is a maliciousness about the continued harassment of this entry with a bias tag, without a single academic, scholarly or logical assertion as to what constitutes the bias. Even when Snowded made the claim that info processing is mainly discredited and I explicitly requested some citation for that claim, nothing was give in response. Table 1 does draw a contrast with information processing theory, and could, if space and readability allowed, be expanded to include Behaviorism. No where else in this entry can be tagged with bias, even from Snowded's discussion, yet repeatedly the bias tag has been misplaced at the top of the entire entry. In reference to the special issue of Cognitive Science, which is cited with dozens of additional articles in the entry, that issue explicitly addresses Snowded's claim that the info processing view has been unfairly characterized. Others are invited to read that special issues with contributions by several authors, not just a single position, then judge Snowded's claim. It should not be the purpose of this entry to define all of psychology, including the alternatives to Situated cognition. Those should be included in separate wikipedia postings. I will not remove the bias tag (leaving that to others), as I would hope that anyone seeing it would now review this discussion, and judge for themselves the maliciousness of the continued claim of bias. I welcome all editors, especially wikipedia staff and experienced psychology editors into this dialog. I invite all to use this forum as a request for comments, and in the spirit of Jean Lave's community of practice described in the entry, to ultimately correct this doggedly determined, unsupported claim of bias. --UConnMike (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a series of references to respected academic authors in the field any of whose works would support a more diverse opinion. The bulk of the above comment would therefore indicate that UConnMike is not reading what s/he does not like to hear. I am making a very simple argument to the effect that an article of this type should situate itself in the field. A simple entry which summarised this one previous special edition of a journal might well serve the purpose. It seems to me that you have no desire to improve the article, just to assert a position.

Using phrases like "malicious" is not acceptable behaviour in the Wikipedia. I also note that UConnMike has not answered the question as to whether 64.252.49.107 and UConnMike are the same person. If this is undeclared then it is sock puppetry which can result in the editor concerned being banned. --Snowded (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Malicious, certainly absurd. The contention that the definition of one theory must simultaneously define several others to be unbiased is patently absurd. The definition of alternatives belong in separate posts. Perhaps Snowded does not understand what bias in an article means... it is not that it fails to cover all possible alternatives, but rather that something that is stated is not objectively verifiable... in this case that would mean something stated about situated cognition, or information processing (in Table 1) can be discussed as possibly false. What is that, Snowded, that you are claiming as biased or false? And since I am having such trouble reading things, perhaps you can clearly restate in your next post the citations or references for us to read that support your contention of bias in either the description of Situated Cognition as given, or the contrasts with Information Processing. Next, I welcome any and all contact with Wikipedia or other experts to weigh in on these issues. Perhaps they can and should review the postings and behaviors of all involved in this dispute. Finally, as to the interest in improving this entry... I can state that those other than Snowded who have posted here, have all described specific text, re-written, and contributed to the article. I believe that is the spirit of Wikipedia, not unilateral sniping, dogged bias claims, and not 1 single revision or alternative text. Let's hope others who read this decide, and state their views, as continuing a UConnMike-Snowded debate here is useless. --UConnMike (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You continue to ignore Wikipedia rules about personal behaviour. If you really think I am being "malicious", "absurd" engage in "unilateral sniping" etc. then you should report my behaviour and let an admin look at it. I've very tempted to report your consistent breech of WP:No personal attacks . My position on this is very simple, any article on this sort of subject should situate the theory within its field. To contrast it with one alternative only is bias. In respect of a wider position I have referenced several authors and if you can't be bothered to read them I am not going to repeat myself. All that is necessarily is for someone with specific understanding and expertise in the field to edit this article so that it provides a basic and credible statement as to the wider context in which Situated cognition is (sic) situated. --Snowded (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Same issue, different take

I'm not convinced this article is unduly biased. I can see where Snowded is coming from, but I think there are a couple of things he has overlooked.

First, it is common in intellectual history that a new idea defines itself by saying what it is not, by rejecting a "tradition" of some kind or other. For example, phenomenology rejects "metaphysics", complexity economics rejects "traditional economics", monotheism rejects "idolatry", computational intelligence rejects "good old fashioned artificial intelligence". The enemy is often only loosely defined, a grand lump of assumptions that may never have been explicitly stated. The enemy may not even be a position that any serious thinker would defend, yet is somehow implicit in the work. This is normal and commonplace.

Second, it is also common for researchers in one area to be ignorant of ideas in other areas. In this article, most of the central citations seem to come from educational psychology. It seems entirely possible to me that researchers in this field aren't particularly up on Andy Clark or the Churchlands. They may have never contrasted their work against these people. So the key question is, can we find a a reliable source that contrasts "situated cognition" against the Churchlands? Or behaviorism? Or enactivism? Or cognitivism? Or functionalism? Or situated robotics? Answer: maybe not. If we can't find a reliable source that contrasts these ideas (a survey, or an introduction, or something), then Wikipedia has nothing to report: to do so would be a WP:SYNTHESIS -- original researrch.

The point is Wikipedia must define situated cognition as it is defined by those who defend it and those who attack it. Using their words and their omissions, their sloppy thinking and their straw men. We can't bring up people who aren't part of that debate. Now, I'm not familiar with the literature on situated cognition, but I am familiar with intellectual history, and it doesn't seem implausible to me that this article presents it subject as fairly as Wikipedia can. While I agree that this article could use some work (for example, I think it needs a real source that criticizes situated cognition. It needs to distinguish precursors (like Dewey) and sympathetic thinkers (like embodied cognition) from people who actually defend a position they themselves call situated cognition. The article also relies too heavily on lists and tables and de-contextualized quotes. All of this criticism is fair.) I don't think Snowded has shown that the article is biased. The {{bias}} should be removed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a reasoned argument. I'm happy to look at replacing the biased tag with another indicating that it needs a lot of work in the hope that someone will put some work in on it. I agree with your removal of the "come and get" us section at the end. --Snowded (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I have changed the tag, removed some hyperbole from the introduction, changed the table title and marked that as questionable. Hopefully someone will now work o this --Snowded (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias seems obvious

I'm surprised at the support to the neutrality of this article. For instance the table is clearly biased. Just look at the first row. The entry for situationism is a well reasoned argument; the one for cognitivism does not even make sense!-

Please give specifics to bias claims

To this unsigned claim of bias, I simply point out that the 1st row of the Table is a comparison of Intelligence, and the quote for cognitivism is take from Ormrod's textbook, used in many undergraduate courses on the subject. It not only makes sense, but is a primary source for teaching about the topic. --UConnMike (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Participation Obviously needed

I'm surprised comments such as this stand here unaddressed when the Edit button affords everyone the opportunity to improve column 2 of the table by composing the well reasoned argument for cognitivism that was posited to be so sorely missing! - --64.252.17.173 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One man holding hostage

I'm also surprised that no additions or amendments have been made to this entry for over a year. Stability itself should attest to the accuracy of the article. Even it's sole detractor has not seen fit to change even 1 word of the article, except repeatedly placing a bias tag on it. If the article is biased, as only 1 person has claimed, then have at it! Change the unfair statements to fair ones! That challenge has stood the test of time-- no changes in a year. Time to quit flagging it as biased if no bias can be found to change. --UConnMike (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It may just be that no one is interested in it. A lot of wikipedia articles end up like that. Until someone cares for it and works on it then it won't improve. Stability does not equal accuracy! lovely idea, must remember that one. I work on a lot of articles and monitor a lot more, so do other editors. Best think you can do (as you obviously care for it) is to work on it. Happy to comment/help out but not lead that. Incidently please read WP:GF --Snowded TALK 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there you have it. If Snowded doesn't like then... it's no good. But Snowded won't give even 1 detail about what's wrong... but is "happy to comment/help" as long as that comment is simply to allege a problem. Great contribution... thanks for all the help. But seriously... what IS the sentence, phrase, reference or paragraph where bias is alleged? Should not some definition of bias include some statement that is provably false or unsupported by research? Please state where that statement is, so that work by fresh contributors can begin to correct it? --UConnMike (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check back UConnMike you will see that I did make it clear why I applied the tag. You just return to the article every month or so and make the same complaint but in the meantime take no action which is surprising. If I recall it was originally put together fairly quickly as a student project and it reflects that. Again please read WP:GF --Snowded TALK 06:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If YOU check back Snowded you will see that you DID NOT state any specific word, sentence, phrase, reference, paragraph or conceptual statement where you allege bias. You will also see repeated requests for this information so that your issue(s), once concretely given, could be addressed. But instead, bias tag... vague statement about bias, is what you have provided. That's obstruction, not editing. It's opinion that this article is biased, without concrete examples. In short, no work has been done because only obstruction and not help or editing has occurred. --64.252.18.207 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made the reasons very clear and they were not vague. I have seen no one try and address the problem. Just one a month (or longer) someone pops back not to deal with content issues but instead makes statements about other editors. As a matter of interest, is this IP UConnMike or someone else? --Snowded (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Need some reworks

This article is not bad but it need some reworks. It not very easy to follow. For example, that table should give a definition of its "Schema, info. processing)". What does it means? What is the schema approach? Not obvious. Some other stuff could be made clearer too. 206.248.135.249 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs some significant work, from the introduction to the key principles section. The table in particular, while I don't think is biased as some have claimed, does not accurately portray either the situative or cognitivist perspective on certain topics, especially theory of knowledge or intelligence. I'll take a stab at these when I have time, but in the meantime I've re-worked the intro, added something to affordances, and some critiques. But I think the key principles section needs to be totally revamped, as I think something like legitimate peripheral participation is not a key principle of situated cognition. It is at best an interesting and important theory about learning and community of practice formation, but there are many other core ideas of situated cognition that should be mentioned first. Molokaibeach (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This page still needs significant work. I cleaned up some of the very messy language and deleted the assertions that were patently false ("umbrellas" is not a verb; anthropology is not a "post-structural field" in and of itself) in the history, but I still question many of the claims made there about the 'shared principles.' Since this is my first edit on wikipedia, I thought I wouldn't be so bold as to rewrite it entirely.

I think that the initial description or overview needs more clarity. I would suggest quoting or using language from prominent works in distributed cognition. For example:

A theory of situated cognition suggests that activity and perception are importantly and epistemologically prior--at a nonconceptual level--to conceptualization and that it is on them that more attention needs to be focused.

Or:

In short, situated cognition is the study of how human knowledge develops as a means of coordinating activity within activity itself.

Thoughts? Yakstronaut (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Substantial Revision Completed

Seems like alot of changes have been made. Time to revisit the dispute of bias, I'd suggest. --UConnMike (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the subheadings for "knowing" and "learning" should be made into hyperlinks directing readers to those pages. The knowing page has a redirect to "knowledge" and then under "knowledge" there is a subheading for "situated knowledge", so that would make sense. That being said, the subheading for "situated knowledge" is very basic and is looking for citations to be made there. A simple connection between the two pages might remedy this. The link could also be made to "learning" from the "situated cognition" page...but the information there is much less conducive to dropping a reader off. There is little to no connections being made between learning and the situated nature involved. -- wiobyrne (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Someone referencing this page was surprised that Simon was part of the critique, as was I. After reading Andersen, Reder and Simon, I believe their critique was more along the lines that much of the previous research on situated cognition was intellectually imprecise and methodologically sloppy. I feel that the quote, taken from the article summary, is true to what is a more nuanced critique that the authors are trying to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htjohnson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed Collection Sentence

The sentence in the introduction about the SitCog collection seemed to be more promotional than informative. I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmac1106 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Situated cognition/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Educational Research has been a key part of defining Situated Cognition... with articles in Educational Researcher by groups like Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt 1990 1992 and thier ideas of Anchored Instruction, plus James Greeno's work on "situativity" and its connection to Gibson's ecological psychology of perception/action. There has also been efforts to design autonomous agents (robots) that don't rely on memory models of thinking and problem-solving, but instead act directly in a situated cognition paradigm (Clancy). These are important parts of the theory beyond the ethnography social cognitive perspective of Lave and Wenger. Revisions will be made over the next two weeks to the content and form of the situated cognition page. These based on our experiences from a doctoral seminar entitled: Situated Cognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC) A work in progress. GNA Garcia (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) When does the page graduate beyond "start" class? GNA Garcia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Our mandated contributions to this entry are done as of this moment. GNA Garcia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Empiricism

How does situated cognition "requires an epistemological shift from empiricism"? This isn't explained. Is there source for this statement?

--DracoDruida (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I originally wrote that sentence. It does not belong in the lede. I will revise Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)