@misc{cogprints291, volume = {3}, number = {2}, title = {Representations of knowing: In defense of cognitive apprenticeship.}, author = {William J. Clancey}, year = {1992}, pages = {139--168}, journal = {Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education}, keywords = {cognitive apprenticeship, human learning, memory, robots, situated cognition}, url = {http://cogprints.org/291/}, abstract = {Sandberg and Wielinga argue in their paper, "Situated Cognition: A paradigm shift?" that "there are no strong reasons to leave the traditional paradigm of cognitive science and AI." They are certainly correct that we should not "disregard evidence and achievements of Cognitive and Instructional Sciences." But they fail to appreciate the implications of the storehouse view of knowledge, which suggests that learning is like putting tools in a shed. Situated cognition arguments against traditional views of learning transfer suggest that human memory does not consist of stored facts and procedures. Perhaps because of the difficulty of this connection?and imagining what the alternative could be?Sandberg and Wielinga also misconstrue cognitive apprenticeship ("formal education should not just be replaced by 'cognitive apprenticeship'"). They misunderstand the idea of effectively relating formalized subject material to everyday practice, believing Collins et al. to be against the teaching of theories and generalities altogether, when in fact they favor AI applications to education. The practical implication of cognitive apprenticeship is to refocus instructional research on the design process itself: We should design computer systems in partnership with students, teachers, and practitioners in the context of use, so we can produce programs that people can afford and want to use, that promote creativity, and that relate in an honest, pragmatic way to everyday life.} }