Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributed Cognition as a Lens to Understand the Effects of Scaffolds: The Role of Transfer of Responsibility

  • Review
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Problem solving is an important skill in the knowledge economy. Research indicates that the development of problem solving skills works better in the context of instructional approaches centered on real-world problems. But students need scaffolding to be successful in such instruction. In this paper I present a conceptual framework for understanding the effects of scaffolding. First, I discuss the ultimate goal of scaffolding—the transfer of responsibility—and one way that scholars have conceptualized promoting this outcome (fading). Next, I describe an alternative way to conceptualize transfer of responsibility through the lens of distributed cognition and discuss how this lens informs how to promote transfer of responsibility. Then I propose guidelines for the creation of problem solving scaffolds to support transfer of responsibility and discuss them in light of the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Siebert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 344–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., & Dodge, T. (2008). Strategies for designing embodied curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboër, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 97–110). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., Bareiss, R., & Beckwith, R. (1993/1994). Sickle cell counselor: A prototype goal-based scenario for instruction in a museum environment. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 347–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: Roles of students in a mixed-ability group. Research on Middle Level Education Online, 32(9), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W. (1980). Moral peers to the rescue! A critical appraisal of the “Plus 1” convention in moral education. ERIC document reproduction service Number ED193138.

  • Bibok, M. B., Carpendale, J. I. M., & Müller, M. (2009). Parental scaffolding and the development of the executive function. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 123, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. M. (1991). A view from chemistry. In M. U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving: Views from the content domains (pp. 21–33). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, experience, and school. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Using Co-lab to build systems dynamics models: Students’ actions and online tutorial advice. Computers & Education, 53, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability [Eric document reproduction number 257630]. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, D. B., & Cross, D. R. (2003). Longitudinal analysis of the presence, efficacy and stability of maternal scaffolding during informal problem-solving interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 315–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., DuRussel, L. A., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions during interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1991). Information problem solving: The Big Six skills approach to library and information skills instruction. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. B. (2007). A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 221–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1968). Contributions of learning to human development. Psychological Review, 75(3), 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., Chen, C., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genor, M. (2005). A social reconstructionist framework for reflection: The “problematizing” of teaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(2), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, M. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2004). The problem of agency in scientific distributed cognitive systems. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 759–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73, 710–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 25, 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Baxter, G. P. (1992). Cognitive theory as the basis for design of innovative assessment: Design characteristics of science assessments. CSE Technical Report No. 349. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. [Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED357038].

  • Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (2005). Reconstructing the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 139–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based learning and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44(2), 213–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145–161). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chen, C. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: Supporting self-monitoring and problem-solving skills in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 115–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayluga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayluga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J. T., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, U., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19, 158–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • l’Anson, Rodrigues, S., & Wilson, G. (2003). Mirrors, reflections, and refractions: The contribution of microteaching to reflective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 189–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29, 155–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2009). New directions in evaluating social problem solving in childhood: Early precursors and links to adolescent social competence. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 123, 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeau, R. B. (1998). Cognitive tools in a clinical encounter in medicine: Supporting empathy and success in distributed cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 795–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1992). In search of student expertise in the classroom: A metacognitive analysis. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competency and literacy in school (pp. 3–56). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. UMI number 99598281.

  • Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2009). NSTA position statement: Beyond 2000—teachers of science speak out. Retrieved 9/16/2009 from: http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/beyond2000.aspx

  • Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing to learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1993). Distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1996). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20+54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosengrant, D., van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2006). Case study: Students’ use of multiple representations in problem solving. Physics Education Research Conference, 2005, 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salden, R. J. C. M., Aleven, V., Schwonke, R., & Renkl, A. (2010). The expertise reversal effect and worked examples in tutored problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, J. M. (1977). Problem solving: A structural/process approach with instructional implications. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2006). Scaffolding disciplined inquiry in problem-based learning environments. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 297–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susswein, N., & Racine, T. P. (2009). Wittgenstein and not-just-in-the-head cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 184–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, M. J. (2003). Problem representation, understanding, and learning transfer: Implications for technology education research. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(4), 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1942). Adventure in American education. Vol. 1. The story of the eight-year study. New York: Harper & Brothers. Accessed 6/1/11 at http://www.archive.org/stream/storyoftheeighty009637mbp/storyoftheeighty009637mbp_djvu.txt

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Vosniadou, S. (2007). The cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Weisburg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and meta-cognition: Making science accessible for all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112–142). New York: MacMillan Library Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. E., Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). Using an information problem-solving model as a metacognitive scaffold for multimedia-supported information-based problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., & Picard, R. (2009). Affect-aware tutors: Recognizing and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3/4), 129–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579–604.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Science Foundation Early CAREER grant 0953046 to the author. However, the opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Brian R. Belland

Authors
  1. Brian R. Belland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian R. Belland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belland, B.R. Distributed Cognition as a Lens to Understand the Effects of Scaffolds: The Role of Transfer of Responsibility. Educ Psychol Rev 23, 577–600 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9176-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9176-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation