Instructional Science

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 207–256 | Cite as

Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools

Article

Abstract

Previous research and development with cognitive tools has been limited by an inadequate conceptualization of the complexity underlying their nature and affordances for supporting learning and performance. This paper provides a new perspective on cognitive tools through the lens of the theories of distributed cognition and expertise. 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. This enhanced perspective is used to clarify the nature of cognitive tools and distinguish them from other types of computer tools used in learning contexts. We have classified cognitive tools considering how expertise is classified: domain-independent (general) cognitive tools, domain-generic cognitive tools, and domain-specific cognitive tools. The implications are presented in reference to research, development, and practice of cognitive tools. The capabilities of cognitive tools should be differentiated from those of the human, but regarded as part of the system of expertise. Cognitive tools should be accompanied by appropriate learning activities, and relevant learner performance should then be assessed in the context of tool use.

Keywords

cognitive tools distributed cognition expertise human–computer interaction learning activity learning technology theoretical framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akhras, F.N. & Self J.A. (2000). Modeling the process, not the product, of learning. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 3–28. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven V.A., Koedinger K.R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science 26(2):147–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson J.R., Corbett A.T., Koedinger K.R., Pelletier R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(2):16–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anzai Y. (1991). Toward a General Theory of Expertise. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 64–92Google Scholar
  5. Azevedo R., Cromley J.G., Seibert D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(3):344–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, H.J. (2000). Finding from the teaching, learning and computing survey: is Larry Cuban right? Retrieved May 21, 2003, University of California at Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations Website: http://www. crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf
  7. Bell, P. & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognition, by nature and by design. In D. Jonnassen and S. Land, (eds), Theoretical foundations of learning environments, pp.␣123–145. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown A.L., Ash D., Rutherford M., Nakagawa K., Gordon A., Campione J.C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In: Salomon G. (eds). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 188–228Google Scholar
  9. Camerer C.F., Johnson E.J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly?. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Towards a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 195–217Google Scholar
  10. Carlson R.A. (1997). Experienced cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Charness N. (1991). Expertise in chess: the balance between knowledge and search. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 39–63Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K. & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one firstgrade classroom. In D. Kirshner and J.A. Whitson, (eds), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives, pp. 151–233. Lawrence Erlbaum:Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B. & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Evaluation of a second grade problem-centered mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(1): 3–29Google Scholar
  14. Cole M., Engestrom Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Salomon G. (eds). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1–46Google Scholar
  15. Conati C., VanLehn K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: a computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11(3):398–415Google Scholar
  16. Cuban L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Derry S.J., DuRussel L.A., O’Donnell A.M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: a developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review 10(1):25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Derry S.J., Hawkes L.W. (1993). Local cognitive modeling of problem-solving behavior: an application of fuzzy theory. In: Lajoie S.P., Derry S.J. (eds). Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 107–140Google Scholar
  19. Dörner D., Schölkopf J. (1991). Controlling complex systems; or Expertise as "grandmother’s know-how". In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 218–239Google Scholar
  20. Dreyfus H.L. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. The MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Dreyfus H.L., Dreyfus S.E. (1986). Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Basil Backwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Duffy T.M., Cunningham D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: Jonassen D.H. (eds). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp. 170–198Google Scholar
  23. Duffy T.M., Jonassen D.H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In: Duffy T.M., Jonassen D.H. (eds). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  24. Dunbar K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Strenberg R.J., Davidson J.E. (eds). The nature of insight. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 365–395Google Scholar
  25. Eames, C. & Eames, R. (1977). Powers of ten, [Motion Pictures-9.5 minutes]. Office of Charles and Ray Eames for IBMGoogle Scholar
  26. Edelson D.C., Gordin D.N., Pea R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 8(3/4):391–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edelson D.C., Pea R.D., Gomez L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In: Wilson B.G. (eds). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs NJ, pp. 151–164Google Scholar
  28. Educational Testing Service. (2005). Computer-Based General Test, [Internet]. Educational Testing Service. Available: http://www.gre.org/cbttest.html [2005, May 4]
  29. Egan K. (1998). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive tools shape our understanding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  30. Erickson, J. & Lehrer R. (2000). What’s in a link? Student conceptions of the rhetoric of association in hypermedia composition. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 197–226. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Ericsson K.A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues. In: Ericsson K.A. (eds). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1–50Google Scholar
  32. Ericsson K.A., Charness N. (1994). Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49(8):725–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. & Tesch- Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100(3): 363–406Google Scholar
  34. Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1–38Google Scholar
  35. Erkunt, H. (1998). Computers as cognitive tools in musical composition. Unpublished Dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Falbel A. (1991). The computer as a convivial tool. In: Harel I., Papert S. (eds). constructionism. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  37. Feltovich, P.J., Ford K.M. & Hoffman R.R. (eds). (1997). Expertise in context: Human and machine. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Feltovich P.J., Spiro R.J., Coulson R.L. (1997). Issues of expert flexibility in contexts characterized by complexity and change. In: Feltovich P.J., Ford K.M., Hoffman R.R. (eds). Expertise in context: Human and machine. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 125–146Google Scholar
  39. Glaser R. (1996). Changing the agency for learning: Acquiring expert performance. In: Ericsson K.A. (eds). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 303–319Google Scholar
  40. Harper, B., Hedberg J., Corderoy B. & Wright R. (2000). Employing cognitive tools within interactive multimedia applications. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 227–245. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrington J., Oliver R., Reeves T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian journal of educational technology 19(1):59–71Google Scholar
  42. Hewitt J., Scardamalia M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review 10(1):75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoffman R.R., Feltovich P.J., Ford K.M. (1997). A general conceptual framework for conceiving of expertise and expert systems. In: Feltovich P.J., Ford K.M., Hoffman R.R. (eds). Expertise in context: Human and machine. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 543–580Google Scholar
  44. Holyoak K.J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: toward third generation theories of expertise. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 301–336Google Scholar
  45. Horwitz P. (1999). Designing computer models that teach. In: Feurzeig W., Roberts N. (eds). Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. Springer, New York, pp. 179–196Google Scholar
  46. Horwitz P., Christie M.A. (2000). Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: an example. In: Jacobson M.J., Kozma R.B. (eds). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 163–191Google Scholar
  47. Hutchins E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Jonassen D.H. (1993). Changes in knowledge structures from building semantic net versus production rule representations of subject content. Journal of computer-based instruction 20(4):99–106Google Scholar
  49. Jonassen D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Prentice Hall, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, NJGoogle Scholar
  51. Jonassen D.H., Reeves T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In: Jonassen D.H. (eds). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp. 693–719Google Scholar
  52. Karasavvidis I. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of interactive learning research 13(1/2):11–29Google Scholar
  53. Keating D.P. (1990). Charting pathways to the development of expertise. Educational Psychologist 25(3/4):243–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kelly A.E. (2003). Research as design. Educational researcher 32(1):3–4Google Scholar
  55. Kozma R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of educational research 61(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kozma R.B. (2000a). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobson M.J., Kozma R.B. (eds). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, pp. 11–46Google Scholar
  57. Kozma R.B. (2000b). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational technology research and development 48(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lajoie S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In: Lajoie S.P., Derry S.J. (eds). Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 261–288Google Scholar
  59. Lajoie, S.P. (ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  60. Lajoie, S.P. & Azevedo R. (2000). Cognitive tools for medical informatics. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 247–271. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  61. Lajole, S.P. & Derry, S.J. (1993a). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An introducation. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry, (eds), Computers as cognitive tools, pp. 1–11. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  62. Lajoie, S.P. & Derry S.J. (eds). (1993b). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  63. Langer E.J., Moldoveanu M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of social issues 56(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lave J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NYGoogle Scholar
  65. Lebeau R.B. (1998). Cognitive tools in a clinical encounter in medicine: supporting empathy and expertise in distributed systems. Educational Psychology Review 10(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lehrer R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In: Lajoie S.P., Derry S.J. (eds). Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 197–227Google Scholar
  67. Levin D., Arafeh S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet savvy students and their schools (For the Pew Internet & American Life Project). American Institutes for Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayer R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayer R.E., Moreno R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Metcalf S.J., Krajcik J., Soloway E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In: Jacobson M.J., Kozma R.B. (eds). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 77–115Google Scholar
  71. Moore, J.L. & Rocklin, T.R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review 10(1): 97–113Google Scholar
  72. Netchine-Grynberg G. (1995). The functionality of cognition according to Cassirer, Meyerson, Vygotsky, and Wallon: toward the roots of the concept of cognitive tool. In: Lubek I., van Hezewijk R., Pheterson G., Tolman C.W. (eds). Trends and issues in theoretical psychology. Springer Publishing Company, New York, NY, pp. 207–213Google Scholar
  73. Nickerson, R.S. (1993). On the distribution of cognition: Some reflections. In G. Salmon, (ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, pp. 229–261. NY: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  74. Norman D.A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading MAGoogle Scholar
  75. Olson J.R., Biolsi K.J. (1991). Techniques for representing expert knowledge. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 240–285Google Scholar
  76. Oppenheimer T. (1997). The computer delusion. The atlantic monthly 280:46–65Google Scholar
  77. Pagels H.R. (1988). The dreams of reason: The computer and the rise of the sciences of complexity. Bantam Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Papert S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Patel V.L., Groen G.J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 93–125Google Scholar
  80. Patel V.L., Kaufman D.R., Magder S.A. (1996). The acquisition of medical expertise in complex dynamic environments. In: Ericsson K.A. (eds). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 127–165Google Scholar
  81. Patel V.L., Ramoni M. (1997). Cognitive models of directional inference in expert medical reasoning. In: Ford K., Feltovich P., Hoffman R. (eds). Human and machine cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 67–99Google Scholar
  82. Pea R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In: Salomon G. (ed). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 47–87Google Scholar
  83. Perkins D.N. (1993). Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In: Salomon G. (eds). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 88–110Google Scholar
  84. Perkins D.N., Grotzer T.A. (1997). Teaching intelligence. American Psychologist 52(10):1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Perkins D.N., Salomon G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational researcher 18(1):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Phillips D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher 24(7):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Phillips D.C. (eds). (2000). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  88. Pittinsky, M.S. (eds). (2003). The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  89. Prawat R.S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist 31(3/4):215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Resnick M. (1994). Turtles, Termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  91. Resnick M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. The journal of the learning sciences 5(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Resnick L.B., Levine J.M. & Teasley S.D. (eds). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationGoogle Scholar
  93. Resnick M., Ocko S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In: Harel I., Papert S. (eds). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 141–150Google Scholar
  94. Rheingold H. (1985). Tools for thought: The people and ideas behind the next computer revolution. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  95. Roschelle J., Kaput J.J., Stroup W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students’ engagement with the mathematics of change. In: Jacobson M.J., Kozma R.B. (eds). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 47–75Google Scholar
  96. Sadler P.M., Gould R., Brecher K., Hoffman B. (2000). Astronomical experiences using internet-accessible remote instrumentation. In: Jacobson M.J., Kozma R.B. (eds). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, pp. 259–286Google Scholar
  97. Salomon G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication research 17(1):26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Salomon G. (1993a). No distribution without individuals’ cognition. In: Salomon G. (eds). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 111–138Google Scholar
  99. 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. 179–196Google Scholar
  100. Salomon, G. (ed.). (1993c). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  101. Salomon G., Almog T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: a matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers college record 100(2):222–241Google Scholar
  102. Salomon, G. & Perkins D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In P.D. Pearson, A. Iran-Nejad, ed., Review of research in education, Vol. 23, pp. 1–24. AERA: Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  103. Salomon G., Perkins D.N., Globerson T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational researcher 20(3):2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Salthouse T.A. (1991). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 286–300Google Scholar
  105. Savery J., Duffy T. (1996). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. In: Wilson B. (eds). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs NJ, pp. 135–148Google Scholar
  106. Scardamalia M., Bereiter C. (1991). Literate expertise. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 172–194Google Scholar
  107. Scardamalia M., Bereiter C., McLean R.S., Swallow J., Woodruff E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of educational computing research 45(1):51–68Google Scholar
  108. Schauble L., Raghavan K., Glaser R. (1993). The discovery and reflection notation: a graphical trace for supporting self-regulation in computer-based laboratories. In: Lajoie S.P., Derry S.J. (eds). Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 319–337Google Scholar
  109. Schneider W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance. In: Heller K.A., Monks F.J., Passow A.H. (eds). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 311–324Google Scholar
  110. Schunn C.D., Anderson J.R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive science 23(3):337–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schunn C.D., Anderson J.R. (2001). Acquiring expertise in science: explorations of what, when, and how. In: Crowley K., Schunn C.D., Okada T. (eds). Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, pp. 83–114Google Scholar
  112. Schwartz, D.L., Biswas G., Bransford J.D., Bhuva B., Balac T. & Brophy S. (2000). Computer tools that link assessment and instruction: investing what makes electricity hard to learn. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 273–307. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  113. Shute V.J., Psotka J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: past, present, and future. In: Jonassen D.H. (eds). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp. 570–600Google Scholar
  114. Shute, V.J., Torreano L.A. & Willis R.E. (2000). DNA: Toward an automated knowledge elicitation and organization tool. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 309–335. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  115. Sloboda J. (1991). Musical expertise. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (eds). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 153–171Google Scholar
  116. Smith D.C., Cypher A., Spohrer J. (1997). KidSim: programming agents without a programming language. In: Bradshaw J.M. (eds). Software agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 165–190Google Scholar
  117. Spitulnik M.W., Krajcik J., Soloway E. (1999). Construction of models to promote scientific understanding. In: Feurzeig W., Roberts N. (eds). Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. Springer, New York, pp. 70–94Google Scholar
  118. Stein, E.W. (1997). A look at expertise from a social perspective. In P.J. Feltovich, K.M. Ford and R.R. Hoffman, (eds), Expertise in context: Human and machine, pp. 182–194. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  119. Taylor, R.P. (ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. NY: Teachers College PressGoogle Scholar
  120. Von Glasersfeld E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. The Falmer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  121. Vygotsky L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  122. Wertsch J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  123. Wertsch J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  124. White, B.Y., Shimoda T. & Frederiksen J.R. (2000). Facilitating students’ inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S.P. Lajoie, ed., Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 97–132. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  125. Winn W., Snyder D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In: Jonassen D.H. (eds). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp. 112–142Google Scholar
  126. Zellermayer M., Salomon G., Globerson T., Givon H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized Writing Partner. American educational research journal 28(2):372–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Educational TechnologiesNASA – Sponsored Classroom of the Future Wheeling Jesuit UniversityWheelingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations