Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design

  • Jeong-Im Choi
  • Michael Hannafin


Situated cognition has emerged as a powerful perspective in providing meaningful learning and promoting the transfer of knowledge to real-life situations. While considerable interest has been generated in situated learning environments, few guidelines exist related to their design. The purpose of this paper is to examine the theoretical underpinnings of situated cognition and to derive implications for the design of situated learning environments. The conceptual framework centers on four basic issues: the role of context, the role of content, the role of facilitation, and the role of assessment.


Conceptual Framework Learning Environment Educational Technology Situate Learning Theoretical Underpinning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we think: In C.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  2. Bergen D. (1993). Authentic performance assessments.Childhood Education, 70(2), 99–102.Google Scholar
  3. Brandt, B.L., Farmer, J.A., & Buckmaster, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learn.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 59, 67–78.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J.D., Franks, J.J., Vye, N.J., & Sherwood, R.D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–495). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Vye, N.J., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Research foundations.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1992). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, M.E. (1989).Everyday problem solving: Dollar wise, penny foolish. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 023)Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A.S., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–444). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A.S., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge.Educational Technology, 33-(3),10–15.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, R. (1989). Testing and thoughtfulness.Educational Leadership, 46(6), 31–33.Google Scholar
  12. Bruder, I. (1993). Alternative assessment: Putting technology to the test.Electronic Learning, 12(4), 22–23, 26–28.Google Scholar
  13. Butterfield, E.C., & Nelson, G.D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37-(3),5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1990). Guided learning and transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M.G. Shafto (Eds.),Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Carraher, T.N., Carraher, D.W., & Schliemann, A.D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools.British Journal of Development Psychology, 3, 21–29.Google Scholar
  16. Cliburn, J.W. (1990). Concept maps to promote meaningful learning.Journal of College Science Teaching, 19(4), 212–17.Google Scholar
  17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
  18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited.Educational Technology, 33-(3),52–70.Google Scholar
  20. Collins, A. (1988).Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology: Technical report (Report No. 6899). Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories Incorporated. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 465)Google Scholar
  21. Collins, A. (1990). Reformulating testing to measure learning and thinking. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M.G. Shafto (Eds.),Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 75–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, A. (1993).Design issues for learning environments. (Technical report No. 27). New York, NY: Northwestern University, Center for Technology in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 733)Google Scholar
  23. Collins, A.S., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.Google Scholar
  24. Collins, A.S., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Cunningham, D. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue.Educational Technology, 31-(5),13–17.Google Scholar
  26. Dana, T.M., & Tippins, D.J. (1993). Considering alternative assessments for middle level learners.Middle School Journal, 25(2), 3–5.Google Scholar
  27. De Leeuw, L. (1993). Teaching problem solving: An ATI study of the effects of teaching algorithmic and heuristic solution methods.Instructional Science, 12, 1–48.Google Scholar
  28. diSessa, A.A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning.Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?Educational Technology, 31-(5),7–12.Google Scholar
  30. Gardner, H. (1989).To open minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Greeno, J., Moore, J., & Smith, D. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.),Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Harley, S. (1993). Situated learning and classroom instruction.Educational Technology, 33(3), 46–51.Google Scholar
  34. Holmes, G.A., & Leitzel, T.C. (1993). Evaluating learning through a constructivist paradigm.Performance & Instruction, 32(8), 28–30.Google Scholar
  35. Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kozma, R. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools.Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25.Google Scholar
  37. Larkin, J.H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfers? In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 283–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Lave, J. (1979). Cognitive consequences of traditional apprenticeship training in West Africa.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8(3), 177–180.Google Scholar
  39. Lave, J. (1988).Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & De la Rocha, O. (1990). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivistic values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCaslin, M., & Good, L. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform.Educational Researcher, 21(3), 4–17.Google Scholar
  43. McDermott, L. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics.Physics Today, 37, 24–32.Google Scholar
  44. McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment.Educational Technology, 33(3), 39–45.Google Scholar
  45. Newmann, F.M. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement.Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), 458–463.Google Scholar
  46. Nickerson, R.S. (1989). New directions in educational assessment.Educational Researcher, 18(9), 3–7.Google Scholar
  47. Papert, S. (1993).The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Perkins, D.N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound?Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  50. Puterbaugh, G. (1990, June). CBT and performance support.CBT Directions, 18–25.Google Scholar
  51. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  52. Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rogoff, B. (1984). Introduction: Thinking and learning in social context. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 1–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W.P. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ruth, T. (1992).Teaching for transfer of learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 469)Google Scholar
  56. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R.S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environment.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
  58. Shepard, L.A. (1989). Why we need better assessments.Educational Leadership, 46(6), 4–9.Google Scholar
  59. Siegler, R.S. (1989). Strategy diversity and cognitive assessment.Educational Researcher, 18(9), 15–20.Google Scholar
  60. Slack, M. (1993).Alternative assessment: Can real-world skills be tested? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 362 575)Google Scholar
  61. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.S. (1991). Knowledge representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: Some constructivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility theory and hypertext.Educational Technology, 31(9), 22–25.Google Scholar
  62. Stratton, R.P., & Brown, R. (1972). Improving creative thinking by training in the production and/or judgement of solutions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 390–397.Google Scholar
  63. Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vargas, E.M., & Alvarez, H.J. (1992). Mapping out students' abilities.Science Scope, 15(6), 41–43.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Wilson, A.L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 71–79.Google Scholar
  67. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership?Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.Google Scholar
  68. Wolf, D.P. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work.Educational Leadership, 46(6), 35–39.Google Scholar
  69. Young, M.F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, M.F., & Kulikowich, J.M. (1992).Anchored instruction and anchored assessment: An ecological approach to measuring situated learning. Paper presented at AERA annual meeting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 269)Google Scholar
  71. Zimmerman, E. (1992). Assessing students' progress and achievement in art.Art Education, 45(6), 14–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeong-Im Choi
    • 1
  • Michael Hannafin
    • 1
  1. 1.the Instruction Systems Program, Department of Educational ResearchFlorida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations