Situated learning using descriptive models

A perspective on situated learning is presented which proposes that navigating within a space of many descriptive models overcomes limitations inherent in mono-model approaches to learning contextualized knowledge. The situationist view may be interpreted as drawing attention to neglected aspects of knowledge such as non-verbal, tacit, sub-conscious, metacognitive and affective. Although these elements have evaded adequate modelling for the purpose ofsimulatinghuman behaviour, they can be “attended to” from descriptions tosupporthuman behaviour?however, the utility of a representation depends on the kind of knowledge so described. Different viewpoints of a situation, such as the learner's and a professional's, can be described with different models, which differ in fundamental dimensions. These facilitate communication of viewpoints between learners and professional members of the community, so that though negotiation a synthesis emerges which retains critical aspects of both view points?this is learning. Other interactions between viewpoints develop other affective and metacognitive skills. The many elements of situated action and knowledge are discussed and then a methodology for supporting situated learning with multiple descriptive models is presented. A situated learning environment is present, founded on multiple models, which demonstrates that switching between models is a metalevel process for changing viewpoints and this is the basis of integrating learners into new communities of practice. Learning problem solving, developing identities and refining roles are all introduced and consolidated by an example using multiple models to developaffectiveconciliation skills. The examples given illustrate how part of a professional's knowledge can be used by a learner for one particular approach to learning. However, the representation of the professional, using this multiple models approach, would include informal knowledge from the community of practice as well as formal knowledge. This combination of different knowledge types allows a variety of learning situations to be accommodated.

[1]  W. Clancey The conceptual nature of knowledge, situations, and activity , 1997 .

[2]  A. diSessa Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[3]  Shoshana Zuboff In the Age of the Smart Machine , 1988 .

[4]  J. Piaget The Language and Thought of the Child , 1927 .

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Situated Learning and Education1 , 1996 .

[6]  Hiroshi Ujita,et al.  Computer aided instruction systems for plant operators , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  M. David Merrill,et al.  Integrative goals for instructional design , 1990 .

[8]  Mike J. Chantler,et al.  Towards Model Switching for Diagnosis of Dynamic Systems , 1997 .

[9]  W. J. Clancey,et al.  The knowledge engineer as student: metacognitive bases for asking good questions , 1988 .

[10]  Tom Kontogiannis,et al.  Stress and operator decision making in coping with emergencies , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Trial by Fire: Understanding the Design Requirements for Agents in Complex Environments , 1989, AI Mag..

[12]  G. Gurvitch,et al.  The social frameworks of knowledge , 1971 .

[13]  Tariq M. Khan,et al.  Explanations in simulation based learning , 1997 .

[14]  Rod Moyse A structure and design method for multiple viewpoints , 1992 .

[15]  Roy Leitch,et al.  MuRaLi: An Architecture for Multiple Reasoning , 1996, ISMIS.

[16]  中園 薫 A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences , 1986 .

[17]  D. Towne,et al.  Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad , 1993 .

[18]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively , 1986 .

[19]  John McCarthy,et al.  Notes on Formalizing Context , 1993, IJCAI.

[20]  Roy Leitch,et al.  The representation of domain knowledge in intelligent training systems , 1992 .

[21]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[22]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge , 1987 .

[23]  Kenneth D. Forbus Qualitative Process Theory , 1984, Artificial Intelligence.

[24]  William J. Clancey,et al.  New Perspectives on Cognition and Instructional Technology , 1992 .

[25]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[26]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2022 .

[27]  Paul Milgram,et al.  Planning behavior and its functional role in interactions with complex systems , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[28]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  The Symbolic Worldview: Reply to Vera and Simon , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  William J. Clancey,et al.  Situated Action: A Neuropsychologiwl Interpretation Response to Vera and Simon , 2005 .

[30]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Situated Action: Reply to Reviewers , 1993, Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Tariq M. Khan,et al.  CBT II—Case-based computer-aided instruction: survey of principles, applications and issues , 1995, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[32]  Steven Shapin,et al.  The Scientific Revolution , 1997 .

[33]  Peter Danielson Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man , 1982 .

[34]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  The change in concepts needed to account for human behavior in complex dynamic tasks , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[35]  Jan Wirstad,et al.  On knowledge structures for process operators , 1988 .

[36]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Situated Action: A Symbolic Interpretation , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Donald Reay,et al.  Modelling choices in intelligent systems , 1995 .

[38]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Transfer of Learning from a Constructivist Perspective , 1993 .