This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Situated cognition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Gibson Jgmac1106 ( 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 permissions Vanessa Joy 2008 ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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!-
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Or:
In short, situated cognition is the study of how human knowledge develops as a means of coordinating activity within activity itself. [2]
Thoughts? Yakstronaut ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Situated cognition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Gibson Jgmac1106 ( 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 permissions Vanessa Joy 2008 ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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!-
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Or:
In short, situated cognition is the study of how human knowledge develops as a means of coordinating activity within activity itself. [2]
Thoughts? Yakstronaut ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)