Situated Learning and
why context is the curriculum

In 1991, two researchers — Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger — published a book that made a fairly simple argument: you cannot separate learning from the context where it will actually be used. The two things are not just connected. They are the same thing. Teaching something in isolation from where it will be applied is not really teaching it. It is creating the impression of knowledge without the substance.

Thirty years later, most corporate eLearning is still ignoring this. People sit through slides that describe processes they will carry out in environments that look nothing like the slides. They answer questions about scenarios they have never encountered. And then everyone is surprised when the learning does not show up on the job.

Learning by doing, not by being told

Lave and Wenger's research was not about corporate training. They looked at traditional apprenticeships — midwives in Yucatan, tailors in Liberia, meat cutters in American supermarkets. In every case, they found the same thing: learning did not happen when the apprentice sat down and was taught. It happened when the apprentice started participating — at first on the edges, in small ways, and then progressively more centrally.

The midwifery student did not learn by reading about childbirth. She learned by being in the room — first in a minor role, then more central ones as she became more capable. The tailoring apprentice did not start with fabric theory. He started with pressing and finishing and watching, and gradually took on more complex work. The context was not just the backdrop to the learning. The context was the learning.

Why context-free learning rarely transfers

There is a straightforward reason why context matters so much — it is how memory actually works. We do not store information in some neutral, universally accessible archive. We store it in association with the context where we first encountered it. Researchers call this context-dependent memory, and it has real consequences for how we design learning.

If you learn a process in a classroom, that memory is tied to the classroom — the room, the questions, the instructor. When you later need to use that process in a noisy factory or a hospital corridor or a client's office, the cues are completely different. The memory does not come up easily, because the context has changed. The knowledge is technically in there. It is just not available when you actually need it.

This is why situated learning is not just a nice design philosophy — it is a practical issue. When learning happens in an environment that resembles where it will be used, the memory comes with better cues attached. The person who practised a difficult conversation in a realistic simulation will recall it more easily when they are in the real situation than the person who read about communication frameworks in a module.

What it actually looks like in practice

The good news is that you do not need a physical environment to do this. You need a designed environment — something with enough authentic detail to activate the same thinking the learner will need in the real situation. That is what good simulations, scenario-based eLearning, and well-designed games are actually doing.

Think about two ways to teach a clinical research associate about patient data verification. One: a slide that explains the process and lists the steps. Two: a virtual hospital room where the learner reviews a patient record, finds a discrepancy between the source data and the trial database, and has to decide what to do.

Both cover the same information. But only one activates the kind of thinking the learner will actually need in the field. Only one creates a memory that will surface when they are standing in front of a real patient record, under time pressure, with a trial's integrity depending on getting it right.

Learning is social, not just individual

There is another part of Lave and Wenger's work that most corporate training ignores: the social dimension. Their idea of a community of practice describes how professional knowledge is not just held in individuals — it lives in the relationships, conversations, and shared habits of the group. A new employee does not just learn from a course. They learn from watching how experienced colleagues handle a difficult situation. From the stories told over lunch. From the quiet advice someone gives before a tricky client meeting.

Designing for situated learning means designing for that too — mentoring, peer communities, structured reflection that connects training content to real experience. These are not extras. In the situated learning framework, they are the actual programme.

You do not need a big budget to do this

The most common pushback I hear is a practical one: simulations cost money. Full business simulations with branched scenarios and realistic environments take time and budget that not everyone has. True. But that misses the point.

Situated learning is a design principle, not a technology requirement. A well-written case study that puts learners inside a recognisable problem is situated learning. A peer discussion that asks people to connect training content to something from their actual work last week is situated learning. An on-the-job checklist where a supervisor observes specific behaviours in the real environment is situated learning. The investment scales with the fidelity you want, but the principle works at every budget level.