Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Moore, Joyce L.
dc.contributor.author Lin, Xiaodong
dc.contributor.author Schwartz, Daniel L.
dc.contributor.author Petrosino, Anthony
dc.contributor.author Hickey, Daniel T.
dc.contributor.author Campbell, Olin
dc.contributor.author Hmelo, Cindy
dc.contributor.author The Cognition and Technology Group
dc.date.accessioned 2019-04-15T15:24:02Z
dc.date.available 2019-04-15T15:24:02Z
dc.date.issued 1994-10
dc.identifier.citation Moore, J. L., Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., Petrosino, A., Hickey, D. T., Cambell, O., Hmelo, C., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). The relationship between situated cognition and anchored instruction: A response to Tripp. Educational Technology, 34, 28-32. en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2022/22918
dc.description.abstract Tripp's analysis of our article begins with a variant of the 'We love you, but. .. " structure that is often used by reviewers and always dreaded by reviewees (i.e., "I have the greatest respect for the work the Vanderbilt Group is doing. However ... ," Tripp, 1993, p. 75). His "however" involves two "small" points of contention. First, he states that what we are doing is not situated learning; second, we are not teaching problem solving. Needless to say, these two claims by Tripp caught our attention because they suggested a perspective on our work that was novel to us. en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Educational Technology en
dc.relation.isversionof https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428227 en
dc.title The Relationship Between Situated Cognition and Anchored Instruction: A Response to Tripp en
dc.type Article en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search IUScholarWorks


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics