|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.
Could use more on the development of perspective, and training of cognition and perception as part of the task. Might also make mention of guilds which traditionally employed only this kind of education, in contrast to the university which was more focused on ethics and moral code inculcation - training to tell people what to do, etc.
the intro statement for what situated learning is is incorrect - SL is learning in context, not bounded by classrooms. In fact, lave and Wenger, who coined the term, argue that the situated nture of learning confounds classroom instruction, and avoided talking about SL-as-pedagogy
I think this article is a good stand-alone topic. I've added sections, and included an association with another article Learning objects. WikiProject Education has requested expansion of this article which is linked from Portal:Education • CQ 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed an internal link to 'context', since there is currently no page that I can find discussing the relevant sense of that term. A new page could be created with a title such as Context (education) or the like. Alternately, a link could be added to Wiktionary (wikt:context). Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This topic asserts that Lave and Wegner first proposed this idea in 1991, however Brown uses the phrase "situated learning" and in his paper "Situated cognition and the culture of learning" (by John Seely Brown, Allan Collins and Paul Duguid Educational Researcher; v18 n1, pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989.) and rudementarily describes its elements. This was two years before Lave and Wegner.
I second that. In the literature, papers such as "Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills" by David Billing (doi:10.1007/s10734-005-5628-5) credit Brown for situated learning. Ernest Joyce (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
John Seely Brown, the chief scientist at the Palo Alto Research Center, was a cofounder of the Institute for Research on Learning. Referring to the 1989 Educational Researcher article at http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/museumeducation/situated.html , Jean Lave is cited six times: one article in 1977, three articles in 1988, and two works in preparation, one of which would have become the Situated Learning book published in 1991 with Étienne Wenger, who did his Ph.D. at U.C. Irvine between 1985-1990. Around PARC and IRL, there were a lot of ideas floating around, so it's not like JSB was stealing ideas, he was part of a Community of Practice jointly developing the ideas at the time.
Situated learning overwhelmed by situated cognition and problem-based learning content
The addition of the references to Hung made around 2011 move the center of discussion away from situated learning, and towards situated cognition and problem-based learning. The content was added by a user Koffeemaker, who doesn't now have a profile on wikipedia. If the 10.5 paragraphs were struck from the current entry, does it lessen the understanding of what situated learning is? Daviding (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi David, it is hard to give you a straight answer. I think the article brings up a lot of different aspects of situated learning, and this does have a certain quality. For now I have tried to improve the online presentation, especially by naming those 10.5 paragraphs (and adding some more). -- Mdd (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I find this article too long. It should not be a tutorial in how to do situated learning or a paean to the construct or method. Define it, given some examples, list some issues, and CITE SOME EVIDENCE (and counter evidence) supporting the perspective or method. Robotczar (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. The article is a bit long and leans towards "how-to" versus encyclopedic.--Lucas559 (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/6277?lang=en_us&o=19511562. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Much of this edit  was copy and pasted.