Situated Learning Theory

General Idea of situate learning: If you put a learner in a real world situation (authentic context) and interact with other people then learning occurs.

Situated learning usually involves engaging in tasks which parallel real world applications. The goal is to improve learning by motivating students and by providing a rich context for learning. It emphasizes the context and application of knowledge rather than memorizing facts (Heeter, 2005).

In 1988, Lave showed that housewives in Irvine, California who could successfully do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping were UNABLE to do the same mathematics when they were placed inside a classroom environment (Wikipedia, 2008a).

A learning environment is considered authentic if the tasks parallel real world situations (Heeter, 2005). Situated learning theory emphasizes social interactions and authentic learning. Students who work on an authentic learning task learn associated facts and skills because they need to know these things to accomplish the task. Learners should engage in context, culture and activity that learning takes place in order to acquire, understand, develop, and implement cognitive instruments in authentic learning activity.

Recently, situated cognition theorists have been pushing for more authentic research. They argue that situating their students and research participants in authentic situations will help them achieve better research results and ultimately enhance their understanding of educational theories. Thus, situated learning usually goes beyond a real world context, and also includes other social participants in the learner experience (Heeter, 2005).

The two approaches to learning: decontextualized (classroom) versus contextualized (situated) learning.

Table 1: Taken from (Heeter, 2005).

Theorists

Jean Lave (PhD., Social Anthropology, Harvard University, 1968) is a social anthropologist and noted social learning theorist. She is currently a Professor of Education and Geography at the University of California, Berkeley. Her studies of apprenticeships are recognized as significant contributions to educational psychology. In 1988, Lave showed that housewives in Irvine, California who could successfully do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping were unable to do the same mathematics when they were placed inside a classroom environment ( Wikipedia, 2008a).

Jean Lave is a social anthropologist with an interest in social theory. Her ethnographically-based research concentrates on the re-conceiving of learning, learners, and everyday life in terms of social practice. She has published three books on the subject: Understanding Practice (co-authored with S. Chaiklin, 1993); Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (with E. Wenger, 1991); and Cognition in Practice (1988). More recently her work has taken a historical turn with a collaborative, ethnohistorical research project, Producing Families, Trading in History on the British merchant families engaged in the port wine trade in Portugal – (History in Person: Enduring Struggles, Contentious Practice, Intimate Identities 2000, edited with Dorothy Holland).

Publications: taken fromVarenne, H. (2003).

Useful Links: taken from Varenne, H. (2004).

• "The politics of learning in everyday life." Talk at the University of Michigan , April 16, 1999

Diagram

Terms

Legitimate peripheral participation: (Atherton, 2005)
• It is legitimate because all parties accept the position of “unqualified” people as potential members of the “community of practice” (Atherton, 2005)
• Peripheral because they hang around on the edge of the important stuff, do the peripheral jobs, and gradually get entrusted with more important ones (Atherton, 2005)
• Participation because it is through doing knowledge that they acquire it. Knowledge is situated within the practices of the community of practice, rather than something which exists “out there” in books. (Atherton, 2005)

Decontextualized: classroom situation (removed from real world contexts) is described as inert.

Contextualized: learning in a given situation.

Communities of Practice (CoP) as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” This learning that takes place is not necessarily intentional. Three components are required in order to be a CoP: (1) the domain, (2) the community, and (3) the practice. (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b)
• Domain: There needs to be a domain. A CoP has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest (e.g. radiologists, Star Trek fans, middle school history teachers, Seahawks football fans, etc.); it’s not just a network of people or club of friends. Membership implies a commitment to the domain (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b).
• Community: There needs to be a community. A necessary component is that members of a specific domain interact and engage in shared activities, help each other, and share information with each other. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. In this way, merely sharing the same job does not necessitate a CoP. A static website on hunting in itself is not a community of practice. There needs to be people who interact and learn together in order for a CoP to be formed. Note that members do not necessarily work together daily, however. Wenger points to the example of Impressionist painters who sometimes met in cafes to discuss their painting styles. He indicates that even though these men normally painted alone, these kinds of interactions were essential to making them a CoP (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b)
• Practice: There needs to be a practice: A CoP is not just people who have an interest in something (e.g. sports or agriculture practices). The third requirement for a CoP is that the members are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources which can include stories, helpful tools, experiences, stories, ways of handling typical problems, etc. This kind of interaction needs to be developed over time. A conversation with a random stranger who happens to be an expert on a subject matter that interests you does not in itself make a CoP. Informal conversations held by people of the same profession (e.g. office assistants or graduate students) help people share and develop a set of cases and stories that can become a shared repertoire for their practice, whether they realize it or not (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b)
Communities develop their practice through a variety of methods, including: problem solving, requests for information, seeking the experiences of others, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, discussing developments, visiting other members, mapping knowledge and identifying gaps, thus social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b).
Authentic Learning Environment: knowledge needs to be presented in authentic contexts i.e.: settings and situations that would simulate that knowledge (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b).

Beginner/novice to Expert/master: A beginner moves from periphery of a community to its center, while doing so they become more active and engage within the culture eventually assuming the role of an expert (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2008b).

Adult Learning Theory Implications

The model has a number of implications:

• Knowledge is defined as what is done.
• It rejects separating training and learning from practice.

Figure 1: Key dimensions of communities of practice

Figure2: Teams versus communities of practice

Usually it is "just in time learning" (but not always - music, sports and military training often begin very early and continue for the whole career of the learner). And classrooms designed for situated learning are usually in use long before there is any "need" to learn the material at hand.

Based on the writings of Lave and Wenger, many have promoted pedagogies that include situated activity. For example,

• Classrooms (like real world): Workshops, kitchens, greenhouses and gardens
• R ole playing (in the real world setting): military training (also considered as behaviorist approach)
• Field trips: archaeological digs and participant-observer studies in an alien culture
• On-the-job-training: apprenticeship and Cooperative education
• Exact actions/Practice (in the real setting) with same equipment or instruments: Sports, music and arts practice.

A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions: by (Clark, 2004)

• What it is about: A joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members.
• How it functions: A mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity.
• What capability it has produced: The shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Examples

According to Heeter (2005) situated learning usually goes beyond a real world context, and also includes other social participants in the learner experience.

Example One - Learning Adobe Photoshop: For example, start with a visualization task you want to accomplish (such as, create a logo for a company.) Look up and learn only a few particular tools you realize you may need to use to accomplish the design, thus also learning the software (Heeter, 2005).

Example Two - Science Education : For an authentic situation, Heeter (2005) suggested a program called “National K-12 Galactic Garden Virtual Laboratory,” that Norm Lownd and he recommended based on a research, conducted on sixth and third grade classes, showing a possible involvement of students and teachers in authentic space plant research which contributes to the U.S. Space Program. This program could give school children an opportunity to participate in real science through online journals and scaffolding, thus also helping the goals of the space program ( Heeter, 2005).

Some pedagogies suggested by many authors based on the writings of Lave and Wenger, on situated activity are as follows: taken from (McDermott, 1998)

Classrooms (like real world): Workshops, kitchens, greenhouses and gardens
R ole playing (in the real world setting): military training (also considered as behaviorist approach)
Field trips: archaeological digs and participant-observer studies in an alien culture
On-the-job-training: apprenticeship and Cooperative education
Exact actions/Practice (in the real setting) with same equipment or instruments: Sports, music and arts practice.

Resources

1. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life (Learning in Doing). NY: Cambridge University Press.
2. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
3. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward A Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation”. Management Science. Retrireved on February 29, 2008 from http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/papers/orglearning.html
   
5. Lave J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Stewart, T. A. (1996). The invisible key to success. Fortune, 134 (4), 173. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/invisible_key.htm
   
7. Wenger, E. (1996).Communities of practice: The social fabric of a learning organization. Health Forum Journal. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://www.ewenger.com/pub/pubhealthcareforum.htm
   
8. Sharp, J. (1997). Communities of Practice: A Review of the Literature: Key Hypotheses in Supporting Communities of Practice. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://www.tfriend.com/hypothesis.html
   
9. Stamp, D. (1997). Communities of practice: Learning is social, training is irrelevant? Training Magazine. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/learnsoc.shtml
   
10. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. NY: Cambridge University Press.
11. McDermott, R. (1998). Learning across teams: The role of communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge management review. Retrieved on February 29, 2008 from http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/Learning.pdf
    
12. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity . NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Mcdermott, R. (1999). Why Information Technology Inspired But Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management. California Management Review. Retrieved February 19, 2008 from http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=CMR158
    
14. McDermott, R. (1999). Nurturing three dimensional Communities of Practice: How to get the most out of human networks. Knowledge Management Review. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/Dimensions.pdf
    
15. Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (January-February 2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
16. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on February 29, 2008 from http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R00309
17. Storck, J. & Hill, P. A. (2000). Knowledge diffusion through “strategic communities. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41 (2), 63-74. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2000/winter/5/
18. Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice: a survey of community-oriented technologies. Retrieved from Self-published report Web site: http://www.ewenger.com/tech
19. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2002). The Social Life of Information.   MA: Harvard Business School Press.
20. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    
21. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
22. St. Onge, H. & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage .  MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
23. Wenger, E. (January 2004). Knowledge management is a donut: shaping your knowledge strategy with communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal.
24. Foulger, T. S. (2005). Innovative progessional development standards: A shift to utilize communities of practices. Essays in education. Retrieved Nov 11, 2007, from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol14summer2005.html Media:Foulger.pdf
25. Carden, P. & Harris, R. (2006). Probationary constables and their journey through a community of practice. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 form the Adult Learning Australia Inc.: A catalyst for lifelong learning Web site: http://www.ala.asn.au/conf/2003/carden.pdf.
26. Low, L. & O'Connell, M. (2006). Learner-Centric Design of Digital Mobile Learning. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved on February 26, 2008 from https://olt.qut.edu.au/udf/OLTCONFERENCEPAPERS/gen/static/papers/Low_OLT2006_paper.pdf
27. Stein, D. (2007). Situated learning in adult education. Retrieved February 27, 2008 from ERICS digest Web site: http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-3/adult-education.html
28. Lankard, B. A. (2007). New ways of learning in the work place. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from ERICS digest Web site: http://ericdigests.org/1996-2/work.html
29. Janson, A. & Howard, L. (2008). The odyssey of Ph.D. students becoming a community of practice. Sage Journals, 67, 168. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://bcq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/67/2/168

Credits

Definition and Terms

Theorist:

Lave Audio

Diagram:

Implications:

Examples:

Outcomes outline

Web Developer

Poonwilas "Kay" Amarasing

Go to Theory Workbook page

Go to main page