The situative perspective shifts the focus of analysis from individual behavior and cognition to larger systems that include behaving cognitive agents interacting with each other and with other subsystems in the environment. The first section presents a version of the situative perspective that draws on studies of social interaction, philosophical situation theory, and ecological psychology. Framing assumptions and concepts are proposed for a synthesis of the situative and cognitive theoretical perspectives, and a further situative synthesis is suggested that would draw on dynamic-systems theory. The second section discusses relations between the situative, cognitive, and behaviorist theoretical perspectives and principles of educational practice. The third section discusses an approach to research and social practice called interactive research and design, which fits with the situative perspective and provides a productive, albeit syncretic, combination of theory-oriented and instrumental functions of research. FRAMING ASSUMPTIONS OF THEORIES In our view, the main distinguishing characteristic of the situative perspective is its theoretical focus on interactive Editor's note. Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., served as action editor for this article.

A processing model is presented that deals explicitly with both the text-comprehension and problem-solving aspects of word arithmetic problems. General principles from a theory of text processing (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) are combined with hypotheses about semantic knowledge for understanding problem texts (Riley, Greeno, & Heller, 1983) in an integrated model of problem comprehension. The model simulates construction of cognitive representations that include information that is appropriate for problem-solving procedures that children use. Several information-processing steps are distinguished, and various levels of representation are described. The model provides an analysis of processing requirements, including requirements for short-term memory that differ among types of problems. Predictions about difficulty of problems based on these processing differences are generally consistent with data that have been reported.

No abstract

This article characterizes teaching as a complex cognitive skill amenable to analysis in a manner similar to other skills described by cognitive psychology. A formal model of the process of instruction in elementary mathematics is presented and examined in light of empirical data from both expert and novice teachers. The model's perspective is that teaching skill rests on two fundamental knowledge systems: lesson structure and subject matter. Instructional segments are carefully analyzed in order to clarify the nature of instructional action and goal systems that support competence. The authors also seek to contribute to cognitive psychology by beginning the analysis of a socially dynamic and complex task domain.

and Simon (1996) contested four propositions that they incorrectly called "claims of situated learning." This response argues that the important differences between situative and cognitive perspectives are not addressed by discussion of these imputed claims. Instead, there are significant differences in the framing assumptions of the two perspectives. I clarify these differences by inferring questions to which Anderson et al.'s discussion provided answers, by identifying presuppositions of those questions made by Anderson et al., and by stating the different presuppositions and questions that 1 believe are consistent with the situative perspective. The evidence given by Anderson et al. is compatible with the framing assumptions of situativity; therefore, deciding between the perspectives will involve broader considerations than those presented in their article. These considerations include expectations about which frameiuork offers the better prospect for developing a unified scientific account of activity considered from both social and individual points of view, and which framework supports research that will inform discussions of educational practice more productively. The cognitive perspective takes the theory of individual cognition as its basis and builds toward a broader theory by incrementally developing analyses of additional components that are considered as contexts. The situative perspective takes the theory of social and ecological interaction as its basis and builds tozvard a more comprehensive theory by developing increasingly detailed analyses of information structures in the contents of people's interactions. While 1 believe that the situative frameiuork is more promising, the best strategy for the field is for both perspectives to be developed energetically.