Interactionally situated cognition: a classroom example

Abstract

According to situated cognition theory, cognitive accomplishments rely in part on structures and processes outside the individual. This article argues that interactional structures -particularly those created through language use -can make essential contributions to situated cognition in rational academic discourse. Most cognitive accomplishments rely in part on language, and language in use always has both representational and interactional functions. The article analyzes one classroom conversation, in order to illustrate how the interactional functions of speech can facilitate the cognitive accomplishments speakers make through that speech. By showing how closely cognition and interaction can interrelate, the article both supports theories of situated cognition and shows how cognition in at least some educational contexts cannot be extricated from enduring social structures and the construction of social identity.

Teaching with evidence

“…Although there was little indication of the effect of social trust in students’ engagement with evidence during these exercises, social trust became more salient during the public policy deliberations in which students exhibited greater faith in evidence drawn from social agents, groups, and the assertions of classmates. This was not surprising given that classroom interactions involve what has been called “situated cognition” (Wortham, 2001) and “epistemic agency” (Dotson, 2014) that is closely tied to student sociocultural identity and social trust.…”

The Interdependence of Social Identification and Learning

“…"Situated" and "sociocultural" accounts of cognition describe how cognitive accomplishments result from processes that can include mental, social, physical, and symbolic components (Greeno, 1997;Latour, 1993;Rogoff, 1998;Wertsch, 1998). Such accounts describe how successful cognition depends on multicomponent systems that include tools and artifacts, the physical layout of settings, the distribution of knowledge among people, and other components (Goodwin, 1995;Hutchins, 1995;Lave, 1988;Lemke, 2000;Wortham, 2001a). Lave (1993) and Wertsch (1998) propose that the systems that facilitate cognition and learning always include at least three types of components: the person or "intramental" structures and processes; the activity or "intermental" structures and processes, which involve tools and other participants in the activity; and the situation or social-historical structures and processes.…”

“…teachers intended to socialize students into the intellectual practice of rational argument, as that practice is envisioned by Adler (1982) and others in the Paideia or "great books" tradition (Wortham, 1995(Wortham, , 2001a. This requires that students learn how to develop their own arguments and how to use evidence to support those arguments.…”

“…Discussion of participants' hypothetical identities within the example can communicate things about the actual participants, as in a double entendre, when curricular categories are applied to identify students who participate in the example. As I have described elsewhere (Wortham, 1994(Wortham, , 2001a, the simultaneous presupposition of both categories of identity and curricular categories in participant examples means that categories from one process can easily be used in the other. Students can become identified using categories from the curriculum, or curricular topics can become conceptualized using categories of identity.…”

Broadening the Lens on the Science of Reading: A Multifaceted Perspective on the Role of Academic Language in Text Understanding

“…This sociocultural interaction is complex. Informational texts read in school are typically written by authors familiar with so‐called ways with language needed to participate in common activities within academic discourse communities (e.g., defining abstract concepts, supporting claims with evidence, positioning the self as knowledgeable; Bakhtin, 1986; Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Fairclough, 2011; Heath, 1983, 2012; Wortham, 2001). Middle grade readers bring vast sociocultural language repertoires and funds of background knowledge that vary considerably depending on each reader’s accumulated experiences and interests inside and outside of school (e.g., sophisticated discourse patterns characteristic of each individual family, youth sports groups, religious groups, manga clubs, video game communities, slam poetry groups, urban theater workshops; Heath, 1983, 2012; Moje, 2014; Moll & Gonzalez, 1994).…”