Skip to main content

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

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, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 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 

  2. 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 

  3. 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 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

  6. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. 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 

  10. 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 

  11. 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 

  12. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

  15. 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 

  16. 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 

  17. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. 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 

  23. 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 

  24. 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 

  25. 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 

  26. 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 

  27. 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 

  28. 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 

  29. 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 

  30. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. 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].

  44. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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 

  61. 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 

  62. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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 

  65. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  67. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  69. 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 

  70. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  72. 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 

  73. 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 

  74. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  77. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  79. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  83. 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 

  84. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  86. 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 

  87. 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 

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

  89. 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 

  90. 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  92. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  94. 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 

  95. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  97. 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 

  98. 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 

  99. 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 

  100. 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 

  101. 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 

  102. 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 

  103. 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 

  104. 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 

  105. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  107. 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 

  108. 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 

  109. 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 

  110. 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 

  111. 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 

  112. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  115. 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 

  116. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  118. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  120. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  122. 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

  123. 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  125. 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  127. 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 

  128. 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 

  129. 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 

  130. 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 

  131. 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 

  132. 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

Affiliations

Authors

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

Keywords

  • Transfer of responsibility
  • Problem solving
  • Scaffolds
  • Computer-based scaffolds
  • Distributed cognition