- 1 Definition
- 2 Why a cognitive tools approach ?
- 3 Problems and challenges
- 4 Cognitive tools and the joint learning system
- 5 Typologies of cognitive tools
- 6 Tools
- 7 Links
- 8 References
- Cognitive tools refer to learning with technology (as opposed to learning through technology). Jonassen (1994) argues that “ technologies, from the ecological perspective of Gibson (1979), afford the most meaningful thinking when used as tools”.
- Cognitive tools are generalizable computer tools that are intended to engage and facilitate cognitive processing. [...] Cognitive tools can be thought of as a set of tools that learners need in order to serve cognitive apprenticeships. [...] They scaffold the all-important processes of articulation and reflection, which are the foundations of knowledge construction. They (gag, can I say it?) empower the learners to think more meaningfully and to assume ownership of their knowledge, rather than reproducing the teacher's. The major problem if we accept this conception of technologies is what to do with all of the instructional designers... (Jonassen 1994).
- Cognitive tools help learners with complex cognitive learning activities and critical thinking. These tools are learner controlled in the sense that they construct their knowledge themselves using the tools rather than memorizing knowledge. In this perspective, computer systems are "partners" that stimulate learners or groups of learners to make maximum use of their cognitive potential.
- “ Because of the interactive nature of technology and the power of its information-processing capabilities, Jonassen (1996) proposes that when students learn with technology, it becomes a "mindtool." He defines mindtools as "computer-based tools and learning environments that have been adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning" (p. 9). Using commonly available software (databases, spreadsheets, electronic mail, multimedia, hypermedia, and others), learners employ technology to both construct and represent knowledge. This concept is similar to Pea's (1985) conception of a cognitive technology as " . . . any medium that helps transcend the limitations of the mind, such as memory, in activities of thinking, learning, and problem solving" (p. 168).” (Boethel and Dimok, 1999: 17).
- “ Cognitive tools are technologies that learners interact and think with in knowledge construction, designed to bring their expertise to the performance as part of the joint learning system.” (Kim and Reeves (2007:224)
2 Why a cognitive tools approach ?
According to Shim and Lee (2006), Lajoie (1993, p. 261) summarized that cognitive tools can benefit learners by serving the functions as follows:
- Support cognitive processes, such as, memory and metacognitive processes
- Share the cognitive load by providing support for lower level cognitive skills so that resources are left over for higher order thinking skills
- Allow the learners to engage in cognitive activities that would be out of their reach otherwise
- Allow learners to generate and test hypotheses in the context of problem solving
Let's continue with a longer quotation from Reeves (1999) keynote speech at Ed-Media 1999:
This longer quotation (sorry) summarizes key features of the "cognitive tool approach" formalated in the late nineties: Learner empowerment, project-orientated authentic and "meaningful" learning, computer as a partner and variety of tools.
3 Problems and challenges
(needs to be completed)
Use of cognitive tools often requires expertise that learners don't necessarily have.
In addition, assessment of what is learned is often done in a different context which is debatable if one adheres to the idea that cognitive tools are also professional tools, i.e. related to practise that has to be learnt.
On the other hand, some cognitive tools (e.g. simulations) can have the effect that the learner just learns the tool (video game effect) and not something that he can transfer.
4 Cognitive tools and the joint learning system
Building on top of Salomon's (1991,1993a, 1993c) concepts of distributed cognition, Kim and Reeves (2007:207) argue that “the learner, tool, and activity form a joint learning system, and the expertise in the world should be reflected not only in the tool but also in the learning activity within which learners make use of the tool.”
Interestingly enough, there has been a similar argument by Rabardel in terms of instrumentation: “An activity consists of acting upon an object in order to realize a goal and give concrete form to a motive. Yet the relationship between the subject and the object is not direct. It involves mediation by a third party: the instrument [...] An instrument cannot be confounded with an artifact. An artifact only becomes an instrument through the subject's activity. In this light, while an instrument is clearly a mediator between the subject and the object, it is also made up of the subject and the artifact.” (Béguin & Rabardel, 2000, P.175). In other words, instrumentation is related to action, i.e. how a technical object is used within an activity and how it affects cognitive schemas.
Activity theory, based on soviet micro-sociology and psychology also stresses the role of instruments within an activity system. Participants in an activity are portrayed as subjects interacting with objects and other subjects to achieve desired outcomes. Human interactions with each other and with objects of the environment are mediated through the use of tools, rules and division of labour.
Common to these approaches is the idea that human cognition relies on the (situated) environment. In this perspective cognition is distributed, although in various forms and to various degrees. Kim and Reeves (2007:216) argue that “A cognitive activity usually reflects some aspects of all three cognitive distributions: social, symbolic, and physical. For example, brainstorming for ideas as a team exemplifies social distribution of cognition among people. Drawing a diagram on the board to visualize their discussed ideas reflects their dependence upon the symbolic and physical distribution.”. Note, that some researchers may not agree that symbol systems should be conceptualized as part of distributed cognition, since most cognitive actities rely on symbol processes. On the other hand, technology like computers or paper do allow for symbolic representations that would not be used without these media. The is topic that has been hotly debated in the media debate (initially Clark vs. Kozma).
Computer programs are both symbolic and physical tools, i.e. they represent things and do this and therefore extend our cognitive powers in various ways. These programs have affordances, i.e. properties upon which one can act. These may be intended by the designers or not, be perceptible or not, etc. In most cases, they require engagement from the user and various degrees of expertise.
According to Kim and Reeves (2007:218):
5 Typologies of cognitive tools
5.1 Jonassen & Carr
According to Kim and Reeves (2007:226), Jonassen and Carr (2000) suggested the following classes of "mindtools":
- semantic organization tools (e.g., databases and concept mapping tools),
- dynamic modeling tools (e.g., spreadsheets and microworlds),
- visualization tools (e.g., MathLab and Geometry Tutor),
- knowledge construction tools (e.g., a multimedia authoring tool),
- socially shared cognitive tools (e.g., computer conferencing (forums) and computer-supported collaborative argumentation).
5.2 Lajoe and Derry 1993a and 2000
Kim and Reeves (2007:226) noticed that over two different volumes of Computers as Cognitive Tools, classification has shifted to take into account new learning paradigms.
- Modelers (e.g., TAPS; Derry and Hawkes, 1993). "Modelers" is defined in terms of ITS research, i.e. whether the software would model the student
- Nonmodelers (e.g., HyperAuthor; (Lehrer, 1993),
- and the the ones merging the two (e.g., DARN; Schauble et al., 1993)
- Tools supporting knowledge-building activities (e.g., SCI-WISE; White et al., 2000)
- Tools supporting new forms of knowledge representations (e.g., DNA; Shute et al., 2000).
5.3 Iiyoshi Hannifin and Wang 2005
Robertson, B., Elliot, L., & Robinson, D. (2007). summarize the Roles of Cognitive Tools, Examples, and Specific Technologies with the following table adapted from Iyoshi, et al, 2005. It lists the 5 roles of cognitive tools followed by examples and specific technologies that demonstrate each role.
|Roles of Cognitive Tools||Examples||Specific Technologies|
| I. Information Seeking:|
These tools allow student to retrieve and identify information through learning situations that require the seeking of information.
|II. Information Presentation:|
These tools enable information to be presented in a meaningful and appropriate representation.
|III. Knowledge Organization:|
These support students by allowing them to use a tool to establish relationships among information by structuring or restructuring information by manipulating information.
|IV. Knowledge Integration:|
Such tools allow students to connect new information to prior knowledge therefore students are building a larger array of information.
5.4 Jonassen 2006
Shim and Li (2006) summarize Jonassen's (2006) Cognitive tools for teachers with the following table:
||Database management systems (DBMSs)|
|Structured Computer Conference||
||Email, Bulletin board service, Discussion board|
From these various classifications, Daniel K. Schneider thinks that one could distinguish these broad categories of cognitive tools.
- Simple writing and communication tools (e.g. All sorts of easy web-2.0 applications like blogs, simple CMS tools and simple professional tools.
- Special purpose drawing and writing tools (e.g. concept maps, knowledge forum), some specifically made for education, some not.
- Highly specialized professional tools like authoring environments or simulation tools.
- Tools that model some kind of behavior and let the learner freely interact with those worlds Simulations, Microworlds. These tools are typically made for education
This classification is not based on principles, but rather on what I feel are typical clusters of usage in schools. In our experience (need some more serious data here), the most popular tools are the ones that are both easy and familiar from other context and of use for non-educational purposes.
A more systematic and thoughtful classication scheme has been developed by Kim and Reeves (2007). The authors identify the following dimensions:
- Tool interactivity
- delivery of information, e.g. multimedia presentations, forum messages
- task offload or support, e.g. a calculator, error checker
- support of individual's cognitive activities
Note: The authors insist that in any case cognitive tools should be considered partners that interact with learners to create knowledge and require higher-order thinking from learners.
- Tool specificity - Levels of expertise (according to Patel and Groen)
- general, domain independant expertise (such as creativity)
- specific domain-dependant (precise knowledge and processing strategies of particular domain)
- generic domain-dependant (general domain knowledge, applicable to various sub-domain problems)
- Tool specificity - Structure of expertise
- knowledge, e.g. facts or abstract rules
- functions, e.g. information search, rule execution, decision support
- representations, e.g. concrete (isomorphic), abstract (symbolic)
This section should index related articles that refer to specific kinds of tools (not complete yet !)
Cognitive tools can be really simple, e.g. a Word processor that will allow a teacher to scaffold a student's activity planning process (one can write outlines, use the text as a mirror, etc.). Among teachers, paper-based tools like interactive notebooks or organizers are also very popular, e.g. see creationgs on Pinterest or Teachers Pay Teachers
6.1 Forum + argumentation
- CSILE was a research system that now is commercialized as Knowledge forum
- Fle3 is a free pedagogical platform that builds on ideas of CSILE
6.2 Collaborative hypertexts
- This Wiki is also used in teaching, e.g. students participate through writing activities. During the summer semester 2006 a few students participate in a course that will only be offered once and that features only writing activities.
6.3 Tools for organizing ideas
6.4 Tools to organize writing activities
6.5 Professional tools
6.6 Simulation and microworld building
- See microworlds and simulation and look at systems that are designed for student's end-user programming activities, e.g. AgentSheets or LEGO Mindstorms.
- Drawing tools that simulate something e.g. Cabri Geomètre (geometry) or ASSIST (Gravity)
- Mindtool Resource Page. A good collection of links (papers, tools, etc.)
- elearning-reviews Topic: Cognitive Tools
- Cognition and Technology ED TEC 6444/ED PSY 6444, Joe Polman's course at University of Missouri - St.Louis
- Design Rationale group at MIT. They build some interesting "sketching" applications, like ASSIST for which someone sent me a video linkwith Randy Davis presentig the thing.
- Constructing knowledge with technology.
- Béguin, Pascal (2003), Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers, Interacting with Computers, Volume 15, Issue 5, October 2003, Pages 709-730. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00060-2
- Béguin and Rabardel, 2000. P. Béguin and P. Rabardel, Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 12 (2000), pp. 173-191.
- Boethel, Martha and K. Victoria Dimock (1999). Constructing Knowledge with Technology: A Review of the Literature, SEDL, html/PDF/booklet
- Bransford, John D.; Brown, Ann L.; Cocking, Rodney R. (2000) Technology to Support Learning In Bransford, John D.; Brown, Ann L.; Cocking, Rodney R. (Eds.), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, pp. 206-230 ISBN 0309070368
- Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in a knowledge society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Clark, Richard C. (1983). "Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media," Review of Educational Research 53 (Winter 1983): 445-59. JSTOR HTMLImages / PDF (Access restricted)
- Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Abstract PDF - DOI 10.1007/BF02299088 (Access restricted)
- Derry, S.J. & Hawkes, L.W. (1993). Local cognitive modeling of problem-solving behavior: an application of fuzzy theory. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry, ed., Computers as cognitive tools, pp. 107-140. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
- Iiyoshi, T., Hannifin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning:Rethinkingtools, functions, and applications. Educational Media International, 42, 281-296.
- Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 1st edition. (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
- Jonassen, David. H. (1994), Technology as Cognitive Tools: Learners as Designers, ITForum Paper #1 HTML
- Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Jonassen, D.H. & Carr C.S. (2000). Mindtools: affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 165-196. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ
- Jonassen, D.H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Columbus, OH: Merill/Prentice Hall.
- Kim, Beaumie and Thomas C. Reeves (2007), Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools, Instructional Science, Volume 35, Number 3, 207-256. DOI 10.1007/s11251-006-9005-2 (Access restricted).
- Kozma, Robert B. (1991). "Learning with Media," Review of Educational Research 61 (Summer 1991): 179-211.
- Kozma, Robert B. (1994), The Influence of Media on Learning: The Debate Continues, School Library Media Research, Volume 22, Number 4, Summer 1994. HTML
- Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Lajoie, S.P. (ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Lebeau R.B. (1998). Cognitive tools in a clinical encounter in medicine: supporting empathy and expertise in distributed systems. Educational Psychology Review 10(1):3-24
- Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: patterns of hypermedia design. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry, ed., Computers as cognitive tools, pp. 197-227. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
- Maddux, C. D., Johnson, D. L., and Willis, J. W. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning with Tomorrow’s Technologies, Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 176–182.
- Reeves, Thomas C. , A Research Agenda for Interactive Learning in the New Millennium, Ed-Media '99 Keynote. 
- Reeves, Thomas C. (1998), The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools, A Research Report prepared for The Bertelsmann Foundation, 
- Robertson, B., Elliot, L., & Robinson, D. (2007). Cognitive tools. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 17:46, 26 July 2007 (MEST) from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
- Salomon G., Perkins D.N., Globerson T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational researcher 20(3):2-9.
- Salomon G. (1993a). No distribution without individuals' cognition. In: Salomon G. (eds). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 111-138
- Salomon G. (1993b). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: the case of the writing partner. In: Derry S.J. (eds). Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 179-196
- Salomon, G. (ed.). (1993c). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press
- Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge Forum (Advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl. 3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 23-28.
- Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
- Scardamalia, M. (2004a). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
- Schauble, L., Raghavan, K. & Glaser, R. (1993). The discovery and reflection notation: a graphical trace for supporting self-regulation in computer-based laboratories. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry, ed., Computers as cognitive tools, pp. 319-337. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
- Shim, J. E., & Li, Y. (2006). Applications of Cognitive Tools in the Classroom. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 17:46, 26 July 2007 (MEST), from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.