anderson, reder pt1

8/2/2019 Anderson, Reder Pt1

1/7


2/7

Counci l , 1994) . We wi l l focus on the fo ur c la ims of s i tua tedlearning ident i f ied in the NRC report .Cla im 1 : Act io n I s Gro u n d ed in th e Co n crete S i tu a t io nin Wh ich I t Occu rsThat ac t ion is s i tua t ional ly grounded is sure ly the cent ra lc la im of si tua ted cogni t ion. I t mea ns tha t the potent ia l i t iesfo r a c t i on canno t be fu l ly de sc r ibed independen t ly o f t hespeci f ic s i tua t ion, a s ta tement wi th which we ful ly concur .How eve r , t he c l a im i s some t imes ex agge ra t ed t o a sser t thatal l knowledge is speci f ic to the si tua t ion in which the taski s pe r fo rm ed and tha t more gene ra l knowled ge canno t andwil l not t ransfer to rea l -world si tua t ions. One supposedexample i s Lave 's (1988) descr ipt ion of Orange Countyh o m e m a k e r s w h o d i d v e r y w e l l a t m a k i n g s u p e r m a r k e tbes t -buy ca l cu l a t ions bu t who d id m uc h worse on a r it h -me t i ca lly equ iva l en t schoo l -l i ke pape r -and-penc i l ma the -ma t i c s p rob lems . Ano the r f r equen t ly c i t ed example i sCarraher , Carraher , and Schl iemann's (1985) account ofBraz i l i an s t r ee t ch i ld ren who cou ld pe r fo rm ma thema t i c swhen mak ing sa le s in t he s t r eet bu t we re unab le t o answ ersimi lar problems presented in a school context . As Lave(1988) asser ts in summ ariz in g this research:

In sum, a rithmetic practices are made to fi t the activityat hand, and there are discontinuities between the tech-niques used to solve arithmetic problems in school-likesituations and in the situations of shopping, sell ing pro-duce, cooking, making and selling clothes, and assem-bling truckloads of dairy products. Place-holding algo-rithms do not transfer from school to every day situations,on the whole. On the other hand, extraordin arily success-ful arithmetic activity takes place in these chore and jobsettings. (p. 149)Even i f these c la ims are va l id and genera l izable beyondthese speci f ic cases, they demonst ra te a t most tha t par t icu-lar skil l s prac t iced in rea l - l i fe s i tua t ions do not gen era l izeto schoo l s i t ua t ions . They a ssu red ly do no t demons t ra t e

the converse . That i s , i t does not fol low from these exam-ples tha t a r i thmet ic procedures taught in the c lassroomcanno t be used by a shoppe r t o make p r i ce compar i sons o ra s t r eet vendo r t o mak e change . Such obse rva t ions ca l l forc lose r ana lyse s o f t he t a sk demands and the use o f t heanalyses to devise teachable procedures tha t wi l l achievea ba l ance be tween the advan tages o f gene ra l i t y and theadvan tages o f i ncorpora t ing enough s i t ua tiona l con t ex t t omak e t ransfer l ike ly . The y a lso ca l l for research on the fea-sibi l ity of increasing the appl ica t ion and t ransfer of knowl-edge by inc luding abi l i ty to t ransfer as a speci f ic goal ininst ruc t ion, a ski l l tha t i s g iven l i tt le a t tent ion in most cur-rent inst ruc t ion.At one level , there is nothing new in this c la im about thecon tex tua l i z a t ion o f l e a rn ing . The re have been numerousdemons t ra t i ons i n expe r imen ta l p sycho logy tha t l e a rn ingcan be contextual ized (e .g . , Godden & Baddeley, 1975;Smith, Glenb erg, & Bjork, 1978). For instance , God den andBadde ley found tha t d ive r s had d i f f i cu l ty r emem ber ingunde r wa te r wha t t hey l e a rned on l and o r v i ce ve r sa .Ho wev er , i t is not the case tha t learning is who l ly t ied to aspec i f i c con t ex t . For i ns t ance , Godden and Badde ley ' sd ive r s cou ld r emem ber some o f wha t t hey l e a rned in th eo the r con t ex t . In f ac t , t he re a re many demons t ra t i ons o flearning tha t t ransfer across contexts and of fa ilures to f ind

any context speci f ic i ty in the learning (e .g . , Fernandez &Glenberg , 1985; Saufley, Otaka , & Bavaresco, 198 5)--a fac tthat has o f t en f rus t r a ted r e sea rche r s who were l ook ing fo rcontext sensi t iv i ty .

How t igh t ly l e a rn ing wi l l be bound to con tex t dependson the k ind o f knowledge be ing acqu i red . Some t imesknow ledge i s necessa r i ly boun d to a speci f ic con t ex t by t hena tu re o f i n s t ruc tion . Thus , t o g ive a ma them a t i c s exam ple ,one would not be surpr ised to learn tha t , g iven typica l in-st ruc t ion, carrying is bo und to the context of doing base-10add i t i on and wou ld no t gene ra l i z e t o ano the r ba se sys t em.In o the r c a se s , how con tex tua l i z ed t he l e a rn ing i s depen dson the w ay the m ater ia l i s s tudied. I f the learner e labora testh e kno wle dge wi th mater ia l f ro m a speci fic context , it be-comes ea s i e r t o r e t r i eve t he knowledge in t ha t same con-text (Eich, 1985) , but p erha ps hard er in oth er contexts . Onegene ra l r e su l t i s t ha t knowledge i s more con tex t -boundwh en i t is just taug ht in a s ingle context (Bjork & Richard-son-K lavehn, 1989) .Clear ly , some ski l l s such as reading t ransfer f rom onecontext to another . The very fac t tha t we can engage in ad i scuss ion o f t he con tex t -dependence o f knowledge i s i t -se l f ev idence fo r t he con tex t - independenc e o f r ead ing andwr i t i ng compe tence . Many o f t he demons t ra t i ons o f con-t ex tua l -b ind ing f rom the s i t ua t ed camp invo lve ma thema t -i c s , bu t c l ea r ly ma thema t i ca l compe tence i s no t a lwayscon tex tua l ly boun d e i the r. Al though the i s sue has se ldombeen addressed di rec t ly , the psychologica l research l i te r-a ture i s ful l of cases where mathemat ica l competence hast ransferred from the c lassroom to a l l sor ts of labora torys i t ua t ions ( some t imes b i za r re - - t he i n t en t ion was neve r t oshow t r ansfe r o f ma thema t i ca l sk i l l s - -e .g . , Bassok &Holyoak, 1989; Elio, 1986; Reder & Ritter, 1992). It is notea sy t o loca t e t he many pub l i shed demons t ra t i ons o f ma th -ema t i ca l compe tence gene ra l i z ing t o nove l con t ex t s ; t he sere su lt s a re no t i ndexed unde r "con tex t - ind ependenc e o fma thema t i ca l knowledge" because un t i l r e cen t ly t h i s d idnot seem to be an issue .

The l i te ra ture on si tua t ion-speci f ic i ty of learning of tencomes wi th a va lue j udgment abou t t he mer i t s o f knowl -edge t ied to a nonschool context re la t ive to school- taughtknowledge and an impl i ed o r expre ssed c l a im tha t schoo lknowledge is not legitimate. Lave (1986, 1988, p. 195) goesso fa r as t o sugges t t ha t schoo l - t augh t ma thema t i c s se rvesonly to just i fy an arbi t rary and unfa i r c lass s t ruc ture . Theimpl i ca tion i s t ha t schoo l - t augh t compe tences do no t con-t r i bu t e t o on- the - job pe r fo rmance . Howeve r , numerouss tud ie s show modes t t o la rge co rre l a t ions be tween schoo lach ievement and work pe r fo rmance (e .g . , Hun te r &Hunter, 1984; Bossiere, Knight, & Sabot, 1985) even afterpar t ia l ing o ut the effec ts of genera l abi l ity measu res (whichare somet imes la rger) .Cla im 2: Kn o wle d g e Do es N o t Tra n sfer Betw een Ta sk sThi s second c l a im o f s i t ua t ed cogn i t i on - -o f t he fa i l u re o fknowledge t o t r ansfe r - -can be seen a s a co ro l l a ry o f t hef i rst . I f knowledge is whol ly t ied to the context of it sacquisi t ion, i t wi l l not t ransfer to other contexts . However ,even wi thou t a ssuming ex t reme con tex tua l dependence ,one could st i l l c la im tha t there i s re la t ive ly l i t t le t ransferbeyond near ly ident ica l tasks to di fferent physica l con-texts . Indeed , Lave (1988) argu es tha t there i s no empir ica lev idence fo r such gene ra l t r ansfe r and a sser t s:

6 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER


3/7

It is puzzlin g that learning transfer has lasted for so longas a key conceptu al bridge w ithou t critical challenge. Thelack of stable, robust results in learning transfer experi-ments as well as accumula ting evid ence from cross-situa-tional research on everyday practice, raises a number ofquest ions about the assumpt ions on which t ransfertheory is bas ed- -th e na ture of cognitive "skills," the "con-texts" of problem-solving and "out of context" learning,the normat ive sources of models of good thinking andless than perfect "perform ances." (p. 19)Con t ra ry t o Lave ' s op in ion , a l a rge body o f empi r i ca lresearch on t ransf er in psychology , going back a t least toWeber in 1844 and Fechner in 1858 (Woodworth, 1938,chap . 8 ) , demons t ra t e s t ha t t he re can be e i t he r l a rgeamo unt s o f t ransfer , a modes t am oun t o f t r ansfe r, no t r ans-

fer a t a ll , or even n egat ive t ransfer . Ho w mu ch there i s andwhe the r t r ansfe r i s pos i t i ve depends i n r e l i ab l e ways onthe expe r imen ta l s i t ua t ion an d the r e l a t ion o f t he ma te r i a lor igina l ly learned to the t ransfer mater ia l .The more r ecen t psycho log ica l l i t e ra tu re ( fo r two re l a -t ive ly recent reviews, see Perk ins & Salom on, 1989; Singley& An ders on, 1989) conta ins ma ny fa i lures to achieve t rans-fer (e .g . , Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Hayes & Simon, 1977;Reed, Ernst, & Banerji , 1974; Weisberg, DiCamillo, &Phi l l ips, 1985) , but a lso conta ins many successful demon-st ra t ions of t ransfer (e .g . , Brown, 1994; Brown & Campi-one , 1994; Ko tovs ky & Fal lside , 1989; Lehm an, L emp ert , &Nisbet t , 1988; Pennington, Nicol ich, & Rahm, 1995;Schoen fe ld , 1985; Singley & A nder son , 1989; Smith, 1986).Indeed , i n t he same doma in (Tower o f Hano i i somorphs) ,qu i t e d i ffe ren t amo un t s o f t r ansfe r occur depend ing on t h eamount o f p rac t i c e wi th t he t a rge t t a sk and on t he r ep re -senta t ion of the t ransfer task (Kotovsky & Fal lside , 1989) .Repre sen t a t i on a nd degree o f p rac t ic e a re c r it i ca l fo r de t e r -min ing t he t r ansfe r f rom one t a sk t o ano the r .

S ing ley and And e rson (1989) showed tha t t r ansfe rbe tween t a sks i s a func t ion o f the degree t o which t he t a skssha re cogn i t i ve e l emen t s . Th i s hypo thes i s had a l so beenpu t fo r th ve ry ea r ly i n t he deve lopment o f r e sea rch ont ransfe r (Thornd ike & Woodwor th , 1901 ; Woodwor th ,1938) , but was hard to test exper imenta l ly unt i l we ac-qu i red our mode rn capab i l i t y fo r i den t i fy ing t a sk compo-nen t s . S ing ley and Ande rson t augh t sub j ec t s seve ra l t ex ted i to r s one a f t e r ano the r and sough t t o p red i c t t r ansfe r( sav ings i n l e a rn ing a new ed i to r when i t was no t t augh tf i rst ) . They found tha t subjec ts learned subsequent texted i to r s more r ap id ly and tha t t he num ber o f p rocedura le l emen t s sha red by two t ex t ed i t o r s p red i c t ed t he amoun tof this t ransfer . In fac t , they obta ined la rge t ransfer acrossed i to r s t ha t we re ve ry d i f fe ren t in su r face s t ruc tu re bu t t ha thad c omm on abs t r ac t s truc tu re s . S ing ley and And e rsona l so found tha t s im i la r p r inc ip l e s gove rn t r ansfe r o f ma th -emat ica l c o m n e t e n c p a c r n ~ r n 1 1 1 t i n l p c l n m a i n c a l t h n l ~ h

t o o the r doma ins . As t hey no t e , t he re have been wi ld lyop t imi s t i c c l a ims abou t such t r ansfe r and d i sappo in t ingre su lt s . Klahr and Ca r ve r sho w tha t one can ge t tr ansfe r i fone pe r fo rms a componen t i a l ana lys i s o f t he s t ruc tu re o fLOG O debug g ing and the s t ruc tu re o f t he t r ansfe r t a sk andprov ides i ns t ruc t ion in LOGO des igned to t e ach t he com-m o n c o m p o n e n t s .What about the si tua t ions in which subjec ts have sl~ownrela t ive ly l i t t le t ransfer? In one famous ser ies of s tudies(Gick & Ho lyoa k, 1980, 1983) , subjec ts were pres ented wi thDun cke r ' s (1945) c la ss ic r ad i a t i on p rob lem: "Sup pose y oua re a doc to r f aced wi th a pa t i en t who has an inope rab les tomach tumor . You have a t your d i sposa l r ays t ha t c andes t roy human t i s sue when d i rec t ed wi th su f f i c i en t i n t en -s it y. Ho w can you use t he se r ays t o de s t roy t he t umor wi th -ou t de s t roy ing t he su r round ing hea l thy t i s sue?" ( adap tedfrom Gick & Holyoak, 1983) . Pr ior to the i r exposure to thet a rge t p rob lem, sub j ec t s r ead a s t o ry abou t an ana logousmil i ta ry problem and i t s solut ion. In the story, a genera lwi shes t o cap tu re an enemy fo r t r e ss . Rad ia t i ng ou twardf rom the fo r t r e ss a re many roads , e ach mined in such away tha t t he pa ss ing o f any l a rge fo rce wi l l c ause anexplosion. This prec ludes a ful l -sca le di rec t a t tack. Thegene ra l ' s p l an i s t o d iv ide h i s a rmy , send a sma l l g roupdown each road , and conve rge on t he fo r t r e ss . The com-mon s t r a t egy in bo th p rob lems i s to d iv ide t he fo rce , a t t a ckf rom d i f fe ren t s ide s , and conve rge on t he t a rge t . Af t e rread ing t h is s t o ry , howeve r , on ly abo u t 30% of t he sub j ec tscou ld so lve t he r ad i a t i on p rob lem, which i s on ly a " l im-i t ed " i m p r o v e m e n t ( a l th o u g h a n i m p r o v e m e n t b y a f a c to rof three) over the 10% base l ine solut ion ra te (Gick &Ho lyoa k, 1980) .A st r iking charac ter ist ic of such par t ia l fa i lures of t rans-fe r is how re l a t ive ly t r ans i en t t hey a re. Gicl< and Holy oakincreased t ransfer grea t ly just by suggest ing to subjec tstha t t hey t ry t o make use o f t he p rob lem ab ou t t he gene ral .Expos ing sub j ec t s t o two such ana logs a l so g rea t ly i n -c rea sed t r ansfe r . The amoun t o f t r ansfe r appea red t o de -pend in l a rge pa r t on whe re t he a t t en t ion o f sub j ect s wasd i rec t ed dur ing t he expe r imen t , wh ich sugges t s t he de s i r -abi l i ty of inst ruc t ion and t ra ining on the cues tha t s ignalthe re levance of an avai lable ski l l . A number of s tudiesconve rge_on the conc lus ion t ha t t r ansfe r i s enhanced whe nt ra in ing invo lves mul t i p l e example s and encourages l e a rn -ers to ref lec t on the potent ia l for t ransfer (e .g . , Bransford,Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989; Brown & Kane, 1988;Ghata la , Levin, Pressley, & Lodico, 1985; Pressley,Borkow ski , & S chneider , 1987) .

In research on t ransfer , there has been a tende ncy to lookfor i t where one is least l ike ly to f ind i t . That i s , researcht ends t o look fo r t r ansfe r f rom l it t le p rac t ic e i n one do m a i nto i n i t i a l pe r fo rmance in ano the r doma in . Supe r f i c i a l d i f -f ~ r p n r ~ h~ l 'w~n t h ~ t ~ r n A n m ~ i n e w i l l h ~ z a I - h a i r l ~ r r ~ c ~


4/7

mater ia l , there can be e i ther la rge amounts of t ransfer , amod est am oun t , no t ransfer a t al l, or even negat ive t ransfer.(2) Repre senta t ion and degre e of prac t ice are majorde t e rminan t s o f t he t r ansfe r f rom one t a sk t o ano the r , andt ransfe r va r i e s f rom one doma in t o ano the r d i r ec t ly wi ththe numb er o f symbol i c comp onen t s t ha t a re sha red.(3 ) The amoun t o f t r ansfe r depends on whe re a t t en t ionis di rec ted dur ing learning or a t t ransfer . Tra ining on thecues tha t s ignal the re levance of an avai lable ski l l shouldprobab ly r ece ive more em phas i s i n i ns t ruct ion t han i t nowtypica l ly rece ives.Claim 3: Training By Abstraction Is of Little UseThe c la im tha t t ra ining by abst rac t ion is of li t tle use i s a lsoa corol lary of the c la ims just d iscussed. Nonetheless, onemigh t a rgu e for i t even i f one dism isses the others. Cla im 3has been ex t ended in to an advocacy fo r appren t i ce sh ipt ra ining (Brown, Col l ins, & Duguid, 1989; Col l ins, Brown,& Newman, 1989) . As Col l ins, Brown, and Newman asser t :

The differences between formal schooling and appren-ticeship methods are many, but for our purposes, one ismost important. Perhaps as a by-p rodu ct of the relegationof learning to schools, skills and knowledge taught inschools have become abstracted from their uses in theworld. In apprenticeship learning, on the other hand, tar-get skills are not only con tinually in use by skilled practi-t ioners, but are instrumental to the accomplishment ofmeaningful tasks. (p. 453-454)

Wha t i s mean t by advocacy o f appren t i ce sh ip t r a in ing canva ry f rom advocacy o f c e r t a in r a the r t r ad i t i ona l pedagog i -ca l s t ra tegies such as model ing in t radi t ional c lassrooms tothe c la im tha t the mos t e ffec t ive t ra ining is rea l apprent ice-sh ip t o worke r s i n t he i r r e a l -wor ld env i ronment s . Thestronger ;~zersions of this claim clearly challenge the legiti-mac y of .school~based inst ruc tion.Abst rac t ins t ruc t ion can be ineffec t ive i f wh at i s taughtin the c lassroom is not what i s required on the job. Oftenthis i s an indic tment of the design of the c lassroom in-st ruc t ion ra ther than of the idea of abst rac t inst ruc t ion ini tse l f. Ho wev er , som et ime s i t i s an indic tment , of the jobsi tua t ion. For instance , Los Angeles pol ice af te r leaving thepo l i ce academy a re f r equen t ly t o ld by more expe r i encedof f i ce r s "now fo rge t eve ry th ing you l ea rned" ( Indepen-den t Commiss ion on t he Los Ange le s Po l i ce Depa r tmen t ,1991, p. 125). The consequence is that police officers arep roduced who , i gnor ing t he i r c l a ss room t ra in ing in t heface o f con t ra ry i n f luences dur ing appren t i ce sh ip , may v i -ola te c ivi l r ights and make searches wi thout warrants .Clear ly , one needs to crea te a be t te r correspondencebe tween job pe r fo rmance and abs t r ac t c l a ss room ins t ruc -t i on , and som e t imes t h i s means chang ing the na tu re o f thejob ( i nc lud ing t he s t ruc tu re o f mot iva t ions and rewards)and f igh ting unw an ted and de l e t e r ious e ffect s o f appren-t iceship learning.Abst rac t inst ruc t ion can be very effec t ive . In unpub-l ished research, Singley found tha t abst rac t inst ruc t ionleads to successful t ransfer , whi le concre te inst ruc t ion canlead to fa i lure of t ransfer . He taugh t subjec ts to solve a lge-b ra wo rd p rob lems invo lv ing mix ture s . Some sub jec ts we ret ra ined wi th pic tures of the mixtures whi le other subjec tswere t r a ined wi th abs t r ac t t abu la r r ep re sen t a t i ons t ha th igh l igh t ed t he unde r ly ing ma thema t i ca l r e l a t i onsh ips .

The abst rac t t ra ining group was able to t ransfer be t te r too the r k inds o f p rob lems tha t i nvo lved ana logous ma the -mat ica l re la t ions. Perhaps the most s t r iking demonst ra t ionof t he bene f it o f abs t r ac t i n s t ruct ion comes f rom B iede rm anand Shiffrar (1987) . They loo ked a t the ver y di ff icul t task ofsex ing day-o ld ch i cks- - s ome th ing t ha t peop le spend yea r slearning in an appren t ice- l ike role. The y foun d tha t 20 min-utes of abst rac t inst ruc t ion brou ght n ovices up to the levelso f expe r ts w ho had yea r s o f p ract i ce .The i s sue o f choos ing be twee n abs t r ac t and ve ry spec i fi cinst ruc t ion can be vie wed in the fol lowing way. I f abst rac tt r a in ing i s g iven , l e a rner s mus t a l so absorb t he mone y andt ime costs of obta ining supplementa l t ra ining for each dis-t inc t appl ica t ion. But i f very speci f ic t ra ining is given, theymus t com ple te ly re t ra in for each appl ica t ion. Which is tobe p re fe r red , and t o wha t ex t en t , depends on t he ba l anceamong (a) the cost of the more genera l abst rac t t ra ining,(b) the cost of the speci f ic t ra ining, (c) the cost of the sup-plementa l t ra ining for appl ica t ion of abst rac t t ra ining, and(d) the range of jobs over w hich the learner i s l ike ly to haveoccas ion t o app ly wha t was l e a rned . Someone who wi l lspend yea r s pe r fo rming a s ing l e se t o f ve ry spec i f ic t asksmight be wel l advised to focus on speci f ic t ra ining. But i fthe cost of supp leme nta l t ra ining is not la rge ( i .e . , i f there i ssubstant ia l t ransfer over the range of tasks) , i f technologi-ca l or other changes are l ike ly to a l te r tasks substant ia l lyover the years, or i f the range of tasks the learner i s l ike lyto address over t ime is substant ia l , then abst rac t t ra iningwith supplementa l appl ica t ions t ra ining is c lear ly prefer-able . I t i s easy to work out an exerc ise of th is kind by as-s ign ing num bers t o t he va r ious cos ts and t o t he va r iab i l it yo f t he ta sks encoun te red an d the reby to show tha t t he re i sno so lut ion tha t i s opt imal for a l l cases.Most mode rn in fo rma t ion-p rocess ing t heor i e s i n cogn i -t i ve psycho logy a re " l ea rn ing-by-do ing , " t heor i e s whichimply t ha t l e a rn ing wou ld occur be s t wi th a combina t ionof abst rac t inst ruc t ion and concre te i l lust ra t ions of thel e ssons o f t h i s i n s t ruc t ion . Numerous expe r imen t s showcombining abst rac t inst ruc t ion wi th speci f ic concre te ex-amples i s be t te r than e i ther one a lone (e .g . , Cheng,Ho lyoa k, Nisbet t , & Ol iver , 1986; Fong, Krantz , & Nisbet t ,1986; Nesher & Sukenik, 1991; Reed & Actor, 1991). One ofthe mos t f amous s tud i e s demons t ra t i ng t h i s was pe r -fo rmed by Scho lckow and Jud d (de sc r ibed in Judd , 1908;a concep tua l r ep l i c a t ion by Hendr i ckson & Schroede r ,1941) . They had chi ldren prac t ice throwing dar ts a t anunde rwa te r t a rge t . One g roup o f sub j ec t s r ece ived anexplanat ion of refrac t ion of l ight , which causes the appar-ent loca t ion of the ta rge t to be decept ive . The other grouponly prac t iced, rece iving no abst rac t inst ruc t ion. Bothgroups did equal ly wel l on the prac t ice task, which in-vo lved a t a rge t 12 inches unde r wa te r, bu t t he g ro up w i thabs t r act i n s t ruc t ion d id much be t t e r when a sked to t r ans-fe r t o a s i t ua t ion whe re t he t a rge t was now unde r on ly 4inches of water .A va r i a t i on on advocacy o f appren t i ce sh ip t r a in ing i sadvocacy fo r us ing on ly "au then t i c " p rob lem s (e .g .,Brown, Col l ins, & Duguid, 1989; Lesh & Lamon, 1992) .What i s authent ic i s typica l ly i l l -def ined but involvesa s t rong emphas i s on p rob lems such a s t hose s tuden t smigh t encoun te r i n eve ryday l i f e . A focus on unde r ly ingcogni t ive process would suggest tha t th is i s a superf ic ia lrequirement . Rather , we would argue , as have others (e .g . ,

8 EDUC ATION AL RESEARCHER


5/7

Hieb er t e t a l ., 1994), that th e real goal sho uld be to get s tu-dents mot iva ted and engaged in cogni t ive pr ocesses tha tw i l l t r ans f er . What i s impo r tan t i s w ha t c ogni t ive pr ocessesa pr oblem evokes and no t w ha t r ea l -w or ld t r appings i tmight have . O f ten r ea l -w or ld pr oblems involve a g r ea tdea l o f busy w or k and of f e r l i tt l e opp or tu n i ty to lea rn theta r ge t competences . For ins tance , w e have obse r ved inh i g h s c h o o l m a t h e m a t i c s c l a s s r o o m s - - w h e r e w e h a v e i n -t r oduced longer , mor e r ea l -w or ld- l ike pr oblems to s i tua tea lgebr a (K oedinger , A nder son , H adley , & Mar k , 1995) -tha t much of s tuden t t ime i s spent on ta sks such as t ab l ingand g r aphing , w hich r ap id ly becom e c le r ica l in na tur e . O nthe o the r hand , r e la t ive ly l i tt l e t ime i s spent r e la t ing a lge -br a ic expr es s ions to the r ea l -w or ld s i tua t ions they deno te .To summar ize : abs t r ac t ins t r uc t ion combined w i th con-c r e te examples can be a pow er fu l me thod . This me thod i sespec ia l ly impor tan t w hen lea r n ing mus t be appl ied to aw ide va r ie ty of ( f r equent ly unp r ed ic tab l e ) f u tur e t a sks .C l a i m 4 : I ns t ruc t i on N eeds t o be D one i n C om pl ex ,S oc i a l E nv i ronm ent sA n e labor a t ion of the pr ev ious pos i t ion i s the a r gumenttha t l ea r n ing i s inher en t ly a soc ia l phenomena . A s Laveand Wenger (1991) argue:

In our view, learning is not merely s i tuated in pra ct ice - -as if i t were some indepe nden tly reif iable process that jus thappened to be located somewhere; learning is an inte-gral part of generative social practice in the lived-inworld. (p. 35)A s e c o n d a r g u m e n t i s t h a t l e a r n i n g s h o u l d b e d o n e o ncomplex problems (e .g. , Lesh & Zawojeski , 1992) . Thesetw o ideas a r e pu t toge the r in the pr oposa l tha t l ea r n ingshould take p lace in complex , soc ia l s i tua t ions w i thvar y ing em phas is on the "comp lex" and the " soc ia l. '2A l though job t r a in ing i s on ly one func t ion of educa t ion ,th i s soc ia l + complex for mula for l ea r n ing s i tua t ions i sof ten jus t i f ied w i th r espec t to pr epar ing s tudents for thew or kplace w her e i t i s a r gued they w i l l need to d i sp laythe i r sk i l l s in complex , soc ia l envi r onments (Resnick ,1987).Whi le one mus t l ea r n to dea l w i th the soc ia l a spec ts o fjobs , this is no reason why al l ski l ls required for these jobsshould be t r a ined in a soc ia l contex t . Cons ide r the sk i l l snecessa r y to become a success fu l t ax accountan t . Whi le anaccountan t mus t l ea r n how to dea l w i th c l ien t s , i t i s no tnecessa r y to lea r n the tax code or how to use a ca lcu la torwhile interact ing with a c l ient . I t is bet ter to t ra in indepen-dent pa r t s o f a t ask separ a te ly because f ew er cogni t ive r e-sour ces w i l l then be r equi r ed for pe r for mance , the r ebyr ese r v ing adeq ua te capac i ty for l ea rn ing . Thus , i t is be t te rto lea r n the tax code w i thout hav ing to in te r ac t w i th thec l ien t s imul taneous ly and be t te r to lea r n how to dea l w i tha c l ien t w hen the tax code has been mas te r ed .I n f ac t , a l a r ge body of r e sea r ch in psychology show stha t pa r t t r a in ing i s o f ten mor e e f f ec t ive w he n the pa r tcomponent i s independent , o r nea r ly so , o f the la r ge r t a sk(e.g. , Knerr et al. , 1987; Patrick, 1992). Indeed, in teamtraining, i t is s tandard to do some p ar t - ta sk t r a in ing of in -d iv idua ls o u ts ide the team jus t because i t i s expens iv e andfu t i le to ge t the w hole team toge the r w hen a s ing le mem-ber needs t r a in ing on a new p iece of equ ipm ent (Salas ,D ick inson , Conver se , & Tannenbaum, 1993) . I n t eam

spor ts , where a great deal of a t tention is given to the ef f i-c iency of t r a in ing , the t ime ava i lab le i s a lw ays d iv id ed be -tw een ind iv idua l sk i l l t r a in ing and team t r a in ing .Ther e a r e , o f cour se , r easons som et imes to pr ac t ice sk i ll sin the i r complex se t t ing . Some of the r easons a r e mot iva -t iona l and some r e flec t the spec ia l sk i ll s tha t a r e un iq ue tothe complex s i tua t ion . The s tudent w ho w ishes to p lay v i -o l in in an or ches t r a w ould have a ha r d t ime makingpr ogr es s i f a ll p r ac t ice w er e a t tem pted in the or ches t r a con-tex t . O n the o the r hand , i f the s tuden t n ever p r ac t iced as amember of an or ches t r a , c r i t i ca l sk i l l s un ique to the or -ches t r a w ould no t be acqui r ed . The same a r gumen ts can bemad e in the spor t s contex t , and mot iva t iona l a r gu mentscan a l so be ma de for comple x pr ac t ice in bo th contex ts . Achi ld may not s ee the po in t o f i so la ted exer c i ses bu t w i l lw he n they a r e embe dde d in a r ea l -w or ld ta sk. Chi ldr en a r emot iv a ted to pr ac t ice spor t s sk i ll s because of the pr ospec tof p lay ing in fu l l -sca le games . H ow ever , they of ten spen dmuch mor e t ime pr ac t ic ing component sk i l l s than fu l l -sca le games . I t s eems impor tan t bo th to mot iva t ion and tolea r n ing to pr ac t ice one ' s sk i l l s f r om t ime to t ime in fu l lcontex t , bu t th i s is no t a r eason to mak e th i s the pr inc ipa lmechanism of lea r n ing .W h i l e t h e r e m a y b e m o t i v a t i o n a l m e r i t t o e m b e d d i n gmathem at ica l p r ac t ice in com plex s i tua t ions , G ear y (1995)notes tha t the r e i s much r eason to doubt how in t r ins ica l lymot iva t ing complex mathemat ics i s to mos t s tudents inany contex t . The k ind of sus ta ined pr ac t ice r equi r ed to de -ve lop exce l lence in an advanced dom ain i s no t inher en t lymot iva t ing to mos t ind iv idua ls and r equi r es subs tan t ia lf ami ly and cu l tu r a l sup por t (Er iccson , K r amp e , & Tesche-R6mer , 1993) . Gea ry argues , as hav e oth ers (e .g., Bahr ick &Hall, 1991; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992), that it is this differ-ence in cu l tu r a l suppor t tha t accounts for the la r ge d i f f e r -e n c e i n m a t h e m a t i c s a c h i e v e m e n t b e t w e e n A s i a n a n dA mer ican ch i ld r en .A nother f ace t o f the c la im tha t ins t r uc t ion i s bes t in ah ighly soc ia l envi r onment comes f r om those c la iming ad-vantages for co-oper a t ive lea r n ing as an ins t r uc t iona l too l(e .g. , Johnson & Johnson, 1989) . Cooperat ive learning, a lsok n o w n a s " c o m m u n i t i e s o f p r a c t i c e " a n d " g r o u p l e a r n -ing , " r e f e r s to lea r n ing envi r onments w her e people ofequa l s ta tus w or k toge the r to enhance the i r ind iv idua l ac -quis i t ion of know ledge and sk i l l s . This envi r onment i s tobe cont r as ted w i th tu tor ing ( in w hich the tu tor and tu teea r e of unequ a l kno w led ge and s ta tus ) and team t r a in ing( in w hich the des i r ed ou tcome i s concer ned w i th team org r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e ) . I n a r e v i e w b y t h e C o m m i t t e e o nT e c h n i q u e s f o r t h e E n h a n c e m e n t o f H u m a n P e r f o r m a n c e(Dru ckm an & Bjork, 1994), i t was not ed th at research on co-oper a t ive lea r n ing has f r equent ly no t been w e l l cont r o l led( e .g . , nonr andom ass ignments to t r ea tments , uncont r o l led" teacher " a nd t r ea tment e f fec t s) , tha t r e la t ive ly f ew s tud ies" h a v e s u c c e s sf u l ly d e m o n s t r a t e d a d v a n t a g e s f o r c o o p e r a -t ive ve r sus ind iv idua l l ea r n ing , " and tha t "a number ofde t r imen ta l e f f ec t s a r i s ing f r om cooper a t ive lea r n ing h avebeen id en t i f i ed- - th e ' f r ee ride r ,' the ' sucker ,' the ' s t a tus d i f -ferential , ' and 'gang ing u p' ef fects ( see e .g., Salo mo n andGlob erson , 1989)" (p. 95).The N RC r ev iew of coope r a t ive lea r n ing no tes tha t the r ehave been a subs tan t ia l number of r epor t s o f "no d i f f e r -ences" (e .g. , S lavin, 1990) but unfor tunately, there havea lso been a huge number of p r ac t i t ioner -or ien ted a r t ic le s

MA Y 1996 9


6/7

about coopera t ive learning tha t tend to gloss over di ff icul-t ies wi th the approach and t rea t i t as an academic panacea .Indeed, i t i s appl ied too l ibera l ly wi thout the requisi test ructur ing or scr ipt ing to make i t e ffec t ive . Coopera t ivel ea rn ing must be s t ruc tu red wi th incen t ives t ha t mot iva t ecoope ra t ion and a sha r ing o f t he goa l s t ruc tu re .In col leges, we f ind group projec ts increasingly popularamong ins t ruc to r s , bu t som e o f t he d i f f icu l ti e s encoun te redshow tha t g roup l ea rn ing can become coun te rp roduc t ive .S tuden t s some t imes compla in abou t t he d i ff i cu l ty o f f i nd-ing t imes fo r t he g roup to mee t t o work on a ss ignment stoge the r . The e f fo r t and d i f f icu l ty o f schedu le coord ina t ionmakes the prac t ice frust ra t ing. Further , some studentscompla in t ha t o the r s exp lo i t t he sys t em and a ssume tha to the r pa r tne r s i n t he g roup wi ll do a l l t he work (and henceacquire a l l the knowledge and ski l l s) . A reported prac t iceamong some students i s to divide the labor across c lassesso tha t one member o f a g roup does a l l o f t he work fo r aprojec t in one c lass, whi le another carr ies the burden for adifferent c lass. Clear ly these are not the intended outcomesof coopera t ive learning but are the sor ts of things tha t wi l loccur i f t he re is no t t hough t fu l implemen ta t ion and sc r ip t -ing of the learning si tua t ion. We do not a l lege tha t cooper-a t ive l ea rn ing canno t be successfu l o r some t imes be t t e rthan ind iv idua l l e a rn ing ( see t he Na t iona l Resea rch Coun-ci l 1994 report , Dru ckm an & Bjork, for discussion of i ssuesinvo lved in e f fect ive coope ra t ive and g roup l ea rn ing) .Rather , i t i s not a panacea tha t a lways provides outcomessupe r io r o r even equ iva len t t o those o f i nd iv idua l t r a in ing .The evidence shows, then, tha t ski l l s in complex tasks, in-c lud ing those wi th l a rge soc i a l componen t s , a re usua l lybes t t augh t by a combina t ion o f t r a in ing p rocedure s in -vo lv ing bo th whole t a sks and componen t s and ind iv idua lt ra ining and t ra ining in socia l se t t ings.SummaryIn genera l , s i tua ted learning focuses on some wel l -docu-mented phen omen a in cogn i t ive psycho lo gy and ignore sman y o the r s : whi l e cogn i t ion i s pa r t ly con tex t -depend en t ,i t i s a lso par t ly context- independent ; whi le there are dra-mat ic fa i lures of t ransfer, there are a lso dra mat ic successes;whi le concre te inst ruct ion helps, abst rac t inst ruct ion a lsohe lps ; whi l e some pe r fo rmances bene f i t f rom t ra in ing ina soc ia l con tex t , o the rs do no t . The deve lop men t f rom be -hav io r i sm to cogn i t iv i sm was an awaken ing to t he com-plexi ty of human cogni t ion. We have indica ted in thispape r some o f : the t h ings t ha t have a l r eady been d i scov-e red by cogn i t ive r e search on the l ea rn ing p rocess and theimpl i ca tions o f wha t w e have l ea rned fo r educa t iona l p rac -t ice . The analysis offered by si tua ted learning somet imesseems a r eg re ss ive mov e tha t i gnores o r d i spu te s m uch o fwha t ha s been demons t ra t ed empi r i ca l ly . Wha t i s neededto improve l ea rn ing and t each ing is t o con t inue to deepenour r e sea rch in to t he c i r cumstances t ha t de t e rmine whenna r row er o r b roade r con tex t s a re r equ i red and wh en a t t en -t ion to na r row er o r b roade r sk i l ls a re op t ima l fo r e ffec t iveand eff ic ient learning.We would l ike to c lose by acknowledging, as in theint roduct ion, tha t s i tua ted learning has served a role inra ising our consc iousnes s to cer ta in aspects of learning tha twere no t fu l ly apprec i a t ed in educa t ion . Howeve r , t h i sconsciousness-ra ising has had i t s negat ive aspects as wel l .M uc h o f wha t w e d i scussed in t hi s pape r we re misgu ided

impl i ca tions fo r educa t ion d r awn by the s i t ua t ed l ea rn ingmovement . I t i s not a lways c lear tha t the or iginal si tua tedau thors would endorse t he se impl i ca t ions. How eve r , i n t heabsence o f d i savowa l f rom the cogn i t ive sc i ence commu-n i ty , mi sgu ided p rac t i ce s can have the appea rance o f abasis in scientific research.

Notes1We wish to think S haron Carver, Susan Chipman, Albert Corbet t ,

Lyn English, Ellen Gagne, David Klahr, Ken Koedinger, Rich Lehrer,Marsha Lovet t , Melvin Reder, and Steve Ri t ter for thei r comments onthis paper. This i s not to imply, however, that any of these individua lsagree wi th al l of the assert ions in this paper. Preparat ion of this pape rwas supported by grant MDR-92-53161 from the Nat ional ScienceFounda t ion Directorate for Educat ion and H uman Resources.2Although, interestingly, Lave and Wenger, in their book, explicitlyabstain from making any educat ional recommendat ions based on thisdescript ion of learning.References

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1995). Applications andmisapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Un -publ i shed manuscr ip t . (Access ib l e a t h t t p : / /ww w.psy .cmu. edu /- m m 4 b / m i s a p p l i e d . h t m l )Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (1991). Lifetime ma intena nce of highschool mathemat ics content . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-eral, 120, 22-33.Bassok, M., & Holyo ak, K. J. (1989). Transfer o f domain- spec ific prob -lem solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 16, 522-533.Bieder man, 1., & Shiffrar, M. (1987). Sexing d ay-old chicks: A casestudy and expert systems analysis of a difficul t perceptual learningtask. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-nition, 13, 64(3--645.Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1989). On the puzzling rela-t ionship between environment context and human memory. In C.Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane FIozoerreeSymposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Boissiere, M., Knight, J. B., & Sabot, R. H. (1985). Earnings, schooling ,ability, and cognitive skills. American Econ omic Reviezo, 75,1016-1030.Bransford , J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & She rwo od, R. D. (1989). Newapproache s to instruct ion: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vos-niadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning(pp. 470-497). Cambr idge, England: Cam bridge Universi ty Press.Brown, A. L. (1994). The adv ancem ent of learning. Educational Re-searcher, 23(8), 4-12.Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a com-mun ity o f learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integratingcognitive theory and classroom practice (chap. 9) (pp. 229-270). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.Brown, A. L., & Kane, L. R. (1988). Prescho ol children can learn tot ransfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. CognitivePsychology, 20, 493-523.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P (1989). Situated cognition andthe cul ture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 34-41.Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathe-matics in the streets and in the schools. British Journal of Develop-

mental P sychology, 3, 21-29.Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1986).Pragmat ic versus syntact ic approaches to t raining deduct ive rea-soning. Cognitive P sychology, 18, 293-328.Cobb, l~, Yackel, E., & Wo od, T. (1992). A con structivis t altern ative tothe representat ional view of mind in mathemat ics educat ion. Jour-nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2-33.Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprentice-ship: Teaching students the craft of reading, wri t ing, and mathe-matics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:Essays in honor o f Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Druckman, D., & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). Learning, remembering,believing: Enhancing team and individual performance. Washington,DC: Nat ional Ac adem y Press.

10 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER


7/7

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). Psycholog-ical Monographs, 58(270).Eich, E. (1985). Context, memory, and integrated item/context im-agery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cog-nition, 11,764-770.Elio, R. (1986). Representat ion of s imilar well- learned cognit ive proce-dures. Cognitive Science, 10, 41-74.Ericcson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesche-R6mer, C. (1993). The role ofdeliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psycho-logical Review, 100, 363--406.Fernandez, A., & Glenberg, A. M. (1985). Changing environmentalcontext does not reliably affect memory. Memory & Cognition, 13,333-345.Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statis-tical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psy-chology, 18, 253-292.Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children'scognition. American Psychologist, 50, 24-37.Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., & Lodico, M. G. (1985). Train-ing cognitive strategy monitoring in children. American EducationalResearch Journal, 22, 199-216.Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cog-nitive Psychology, 12,306 -355.Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema inductio n an d analogicaltransfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memoryin two natural environments: On land and u nder w ater. British Jour-nal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1992). Transfer of situatedlearning. In D. Detterm an & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial:

hztelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). Psychological differences amongproblem isomorphs. In J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. Potts (Eds.),Cognitive theory, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hendrick son, G., & Schroeder, W. H. (1941). Transfer training in learn-ing to hit a submerged target. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32,205-213.Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K.,Hum an, P., Olivier, A., & Murray, H. (1994, April). Authentic problemsolving in mathematics. Paper presented a t the meet ing of the Amer-ican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternativepredictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department .(1991). Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment. Los Angeles , CA: Independent Comm ission on the LosAngeles Police Department .Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition:Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Judd, C. H. (1908). The relation of special training to general intelli-gence. Educational Review, 36, 28-42.Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cog nitive objectives in a LOG Odebugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. CognitivePsychology, 20, 362-404.Knerr, C. M., Morrison, J. E., Mumaw, R. J., Stein, D. J., Sticha, P. J.,Hoffman , R. G., Buede, D. M., & Holding , D. M. (1987). Simulation-based research in part-task training (No. AF HRL-TR-86-12, AD-B107293). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human ResourcesLaboratory.Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., & Mark, M. A. (1995).Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. In Proceedings ofthe 7th World Conf eren ce on Artificial Intelligence in Education(pp. 421-428). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advance-ment of Computing in Education.Kotovsky, K., & Fallside, D. (1989). Representation and transfer inproblem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex infor-mation processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 69-108). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.Lave, J. (1986). Experiments, tests, jobs and chores: How we learn todo w hat we do. In K. Borm an & J. Reisman (Eds.), Becoming a zoorker.Norw ood, NJ: Albex.Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Min d, math ematics, and culture ineveryday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheralparticipation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridg e U niversi ty Press .Lehm an, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & N isbett, R. E. (1988). The effects ofgraduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinkingabout everyday-l i fe problems. American Psychologist, 43,431--442.

Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. J. (1992). Assessment of authentic performance inschool mathematics. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Lesh, R., & Zawojeski, J. S. (1992). Problem solving. In T. R. Post (Ed.),Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: R esearch-based methods (p. 49-88).Needh am Heights , MA: Allyn and Bacon.Nesher, P., & Sukenik, M. (1991). The effect of formal representationon the learning of rational concepts. Learning and Instruction, 1,161-175.Patrick, J. (1992). Training: Research and p ractice. San Diego, CA: Acad-emic Press.Pennington, N., Nicolich, R., & Rahm, J. (1995). Transfer of trainingbetween cognit ive subskil ls : Is knowledge use specif ic? CognitivePsychology, 28, 175--224.Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.Pressley, M., Bo rkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Co gnitiv e strate-gies: Good s tra tegy users coordinate metacognit ion and knowl-edge. In R. Vasta & G. Whilehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development,vol. 4 (pp. 80-129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Reder, L. M., & Klatzky, R. (1994) Transfer: Training for performance.In D. Dr uckm an & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believ-ing: Enhancing team and individual performance (pp. 25--56). Was hing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.Reder, L. M., & Ritter, E (1992) Wha t d eterm ines initial feeling ofknowing? Famil iar i ty with quest ion terms, not with the answer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,18, 435-451.Reed, S. K., & Actor, C.A. (1991) Use of examples and procedures inproblem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem-ory, & Cognition, 17, 753-766.Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The rol e of analo gy intransfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6,436--450.Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher,16(9), 13-20.Resnick, L. B. (1994). Situated rationalism: b iological and social prepa-ration for learning. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gelm an (Eds.), Mapping themind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 474-493). Cam-bridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993).Toward an understanding of team performance and t ra ining. InR. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance.Norwo od, NJ: Ablex.Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function theway they ought to . International Journal of Educational Research, 13,89-98.Saufley, W. H., Otaka, S. R., & Bavaresco, J. L. (1985). Context effects:

Classroom tests and context independence. Memo ry & Cognition, 13,522-528.Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Aca-dem ic Press.Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Transfer of cognitive skill . Cam-bridge, MA: H arvard Universi ty Press .Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Smith, S. B. (1986). An analysis of transfer betzoeen Tozoer of Han oi iso-morphs. Unpublished doctoral d isser ta t ion, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-versity, Pittsburgh, PA.Smith, S. M., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). En vironm ental con-text and hum an memory. Memory & Cognition, 6,342-353.Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. w. (1992). The learning gap: Why ourschools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chineseeducation. New York: Summit Books.Thorndike , E. L, & Woodwo rth, R. S. (1901). The influen ce ofimprove ment in one mental funct ion upon the eff ic iency of o therfunctions. Psychological Reviezo, 9, 374-382.Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbo lic inter-pretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 7-48.Weisberg, R., DiCamillo, M., & Phillips, D. (1985). Transferring oldassociations to new situations: A non-automatic process. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 219-228.Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: HenryHolt & Company.

M a n u s c r i p t r e c e i v e d N o v e m b e r 2 5, 1 99 5Revision received March 6, 1996Accepted March 7, 1996MA Y 1996 11

anderson, reder pt1

Documents