Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 87–107 | Cite as

Connection, Translation, Off-Loading, and Monitoring: A Framework for Characterizing the Pedagogical Functions of Educational Technologies

  • Lee Martin
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Distributed cognition offers powerful tools for conceptualizing the role that technology plays in learning environments, yet it can be challenging to apply. This paper presents an analytical framework that focuses on four pedagogical functions that technology can perform in learning environments: connection, translation, off-loading, and monitoring. The framework is drawn from theories of distributed cognition and, in particular, the idea that learning is increased coordination between two cognitive systems. Each pedagogical function is first explicated individually, along with examples. The framework is then applied to several cases, including three technology development and research cases drawn from the literature. The paper concludes with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the framework for use in research and design.

Keywords

Distributed cognition Educational technology Analytical framework Coordination 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artigue, M., Cerulli, M., Haspekian, M., & Maracci, M. (2009). Connecting and integrating theoretical frames: The TELMA contribution. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(3), 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2007). Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 901–938). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.Google Scholar
  6. Brey, P. (2005). The epistemology and ontology of human–computer interaction. Minds and Machines, 15, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101–108.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: WW Norton & Co Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. S., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1980). Cultural amplifiers reconsidered. In D. R. Olson (ed.), The social foundations of language and thought: Essays in honor of Jerome S. Bruner. W. W. Norton and Company: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A. (1995). Designing Newton’s laws: Patterns of social and representational feedback in a learning task. In R.-J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and interaction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450.Google Scholar
  17. Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students’ achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, A. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to do with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (Vol. 30, pp. 11–24). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J., & Martens, R. L. (2004). CSCL in higher education. In J. A., Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Kirsh, D. (1996). Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adaptive Behavior, 4, 415–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R., Hakkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (2001). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. In G. M. Olson, T. W., Malone, & J. B. Smith (Eds.), Coordination theory and collaborative technology (pp. 7–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 20(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  39. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 43–55. doi: 10.1007/bf02299672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for HCI. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 87–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., et al. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  45. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  49. Shaffer, D. W., & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Takeuchi, L. (2007). Toward authentic scientific practice: Comparing the use of GIS in the classroom and laboratory. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the computer supported collaborative learning conference (CSCL) 2007. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, T., Wallace, M., & Lai, K. (2012). Graphing in groups: Learning about lines in a collaborative classroom network environment. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options