A Situated Cognition Perspective on Literacy Discourses: Seeing More Clearly Through a New Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Situated cognition theory is used as an analytical perspective to examine 24 literacy practice vignettes in four domains of learning communities in Canada. This theory helps explain how learning occurs in the social cultural world and how learners become engaged within particular contexts. The analysis portrays that literacy researchers remain constrained by a behaviourist, normative perspective despite the shift in literacy discourse toward a humanist, social perspective. The results provide insight for new directions toward a theory of social literacy in adult literacy research and ways for improving professional development programs for literacy educators by including authentic apprenticeship. The findings demonstrate the potential of situated cognition perspectives to uncover a grounded theory of adult literacy learning through discourse analysis. Résumé Dans cet article, la théorie de la « cognition située » est utilisée pour examiner 24 pratiques d'alphabétisation dans quatre communautés d'apprentissage au Canada. Cette théorie aide à expliquer comment l'apprentissage a lieu dans l'environnement socioculturel et comment les apprenants deviennent impliqués dans des contextes donnés. L'analyse montre que, malgré le changement du discours sur l'alphabétisation en direction d'une approche humaniste et sociale, les chercheurs demeurent prisonniers de l'approche béhavioriste et normative. Les résultats fournissent un aperçu des nouvelles tendances au sujet des théories de l'alphabétisation sociale, ainsi que de ses méthodes en vue d'améliorer les programmes de formation pour les alphabétiseurs en intégrant une véritable formation par apprentissage. Par l'analyse de discours, ils mettent en valeur le potentiel des perspectives de la « cognition situee » dans l'émergence d'une théorie ancrée de l'alphabétisation des adultes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".