Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1996) contested four propositions that they incorrectly called “claims of situated learning.” This response argues that the important differences between situative and cognitive perspectives are not addressed by discussion of these imputed claims. Instead, there are significant differences in the framing assumptions of the two perspectives. I clarify these differences by inferring questions to which Anderson et al.'s discussion provided answers, by identifying presuppositions of those questions made by Anderson et al., and by stating the different presuppositions and questions that I believe are consistent with the situative perspective. The evidence given by Anderson et al. is compatible with the framing assumptions of situativity; therefore, deciding between the perspectives will involve broader considerations than those presented in their article. These considerations include expectations about which framework offers the better prospect for developing a unified scientific account of activity considered from both social and individual points of view, and which framework supports research that will inform discussions of educational practice more productively. The cognitive perspective takes the theory of individual cognition as its basis and builds toward a broader theory by incrementally developing analyses of additional components that are considered as contexts. The situative perspective takes the theory of social and ecological interaction as its basis and builds toward a more comprehensive theory by developing increasingly detailed analyses of information structures in the contents of people's interactions. While I believe that the situative framework is more promising, the best strategy for the field is for both perspectives to be developed energetically.