Situated Cognition & Transfer Presentation

8/9/2019 Situated Cognition & Transfer Presentation

1/18

LEARNING&

TRANSFER

Lisa Brooks

9-24-09

TEACHING&

ASSESSMENT


2/18

Learning and Teaching Examples Differences learning in and out of school Situated cognition perspective

Transfer and Assessment Understanding by Design revisited Complexity of knowledge Near and far transfer

Framework for Discussion


3/18

Vocabulary learning (Miller & Gildea, 1987; Nunberg, 1978)

Weight Watchers (Lave, 1988a)

Street Math (Carraher, Carraher & Schliemann, 1985)

Mathematics Students (Schoenfeld, 1989)


4/18

Formal test

Informal testMathematical

operations

Word problems

Subject Score (%) Score (%) Score (%)

M 100 25 100

P 89 37 69

Pi 100 50 100MD 100 10 33

S 100 83 73

Totals 98.3 36.8 73.7


5/18

JPFs Students Practitioners

Reason with: Casual stories Laws Causal models

Act on: Situations SymbolsConceptual

situations

Resolve:

Emergent

problems &

dilemmas

Well-defined

problems

Ill-defined

problems

Produce:

Negotiable

meaning & sociallyconstructed

understanding

Fixed meaning &

immutableconcepts

Negotiable

meaning & sociallyconstructed

understanding


6/18

Individual versus shared cognition

Pure mentation versus tool manipulation

Symbol manipulation versus contextualized reasoning

Generalized learning versus situation specificcompetencies


7/18

Determine acceptable evidence.

Plan learning experiences and instruction.

Identify desired results.


8/18

What?


9/18

Where?

When?

Why?

How?

What?


10/18

Less

Complex

(More specific)

More

Complex

(More general)

Learned

SkillProcedure Representation

Principle or

heuristic

Performance

Change Speed Accuracy Approach

Memory

DemandsExecute only

Recognize and

execute

Recall, recognize,

and execute


11/18

Near Far

Knowledge Domain Mouse vs. rat Biology vs. physics Science vs. art


12/18

Near Far

Physical Context Sameclassroom Class vs. lab Class vs. beach

Temporal ContextSame

class

Same

semester

Years

later

Functional ContextBoth clearly

academic

Academic vs.

informal

conversation

Academic vs.

practice

Social ContextBoth

individual

Individual vs. small

group

Individual vs.

society

ModalityQuiz vs.

Quiz

Lecture vs.

quiz/essay

Lecture vs.

surgery


13/18

More Complex

Less Complex

FarNear


14/18

More Complex

Less Complex

FarNear

Rote

memorization

Deep

understanding


15/18

More Complex

Less Complex

FarNear

General

skills

Specific

strategies


16/18

More Complex

Less Complex

FarNear

Teacher

knowledge

Student

thinking


17/18

More Complex

Less Complex

FarNear

QUANtitative

measures

QUALitative

measures


18/18

Barnett, S. M. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn: A taxonomy for far transfer.Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schiemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the street and in school.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-29.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. M. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 94-99.

Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20, 54. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students' mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research

in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338-355.

Wiggins, G. (2006). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Situated Cognition & Transfer Presentation

Documents

Transcript of Situated Cognition & Transfer Presentation