The Interaction of Content and Control in Group Problem Solving and Learning

Part of the Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies book series (LSIS, volume 1)


The traditional theory of mind views it as a metaphysical entity (the soul). This entitative conception was revised by modern cognitive theory viewing it as a function in the head. The shift to a functional view of mind eliminates many difficulties with the entitative approach but elements of the latter persist in locating mind inside the head or brain. This creates many problems including inability to account for the collective creation of artifacts that no individual participant fully understands. Greeno attempts to deal with these issues by shifting a functional, symbol processing approach from the individual to the group level. This analysis focuses primarily on the interaction of external problem representations (knowledge) and participant status or authority (control). The resulting approach offers something new to theories of group problem-solving or learning but ignores individual learning and, in treating authority statically, does not live up to Greeno’s initial goal of synthesizing cognitive and socio-linguistic theory.


Illocutionary Force Weak Argument Representational Change Collective Creation Goal Situation 
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.



I want to thank Ray McDermott for a number of helpful criticisms and suggestions


  1. Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). The logical categories of learning and communication. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 279–308). New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bentley, A. F. (1954). The human skin: Philosophy’s last line of defense. Philosophy of Science, 8, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectations states theory. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  5. Bredo, E. (2006). Conceptual confusion and educational psychology. In P. Winne, P. Alexander, & G. Phye (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 43–57). Fairfax, VA: Techbooks.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5–8.Google Scholar
  7. Cazden, C. (1989). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Clancey, W. J. (1991). A boy scout, toto, and a bird: How situated cognition is different from situated robotics. NATO workshop on emergence, situatedness, subsumption, and symbol grounding.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing for group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Dreyfus, H. L. (1979/1972). What computers can’t do. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  14. Hare, P. A., Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Small groups: Studies in social interaction. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Seboek (Ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Knorr-Cetina, K., & Cicourel, A. V. (1981). Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. McDermott, R. P., & Hood, L. (1982). Institutionalized psychology and the ethnography of schooling. In P. Gilmore & A. Gladthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  21. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976, March). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, D., Griffin, P., Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rich, E. (1983). Artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strauss, A. (1959). Mirrors and masks; the search for identity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Verba, S. (1961). Small groups and political behavior: A study of leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  29. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leadership, Foundations and PolicyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations