The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> This game has an adjustable support to be worn around the torso of a player. A resilient ball is tethered to the support with a flexible cord. The length of the flexible cord is adjustable to a suitable length for allowing the ball to be hit in a forward stroke by a person wearing the adjustable support, passed partially around the torso of the wearer and be hit in a reverse stroke. The adjustable support and the tether may be formed from a single, flexible cord with one loop for adjustment around the torso and a second loop for adjustment of the length of the tether. This game allows a single player to maintain a volley with alternate forehand and backhand strokes. <s> BIB001 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> Introduction Traditionally, instructional technologies have been used as media for delivering instruction, that is, as conveyors of information and tutors of students. Whn used in this way, information is "stored" in the technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive and try to understand the messages stored in the technology as they "interact" it. Interaction is often limited to pressing a key to continue the information presentation or responding to queries posed by the stored program. The technology program judges the learner's response and provides feedback, most often about the "correctness" of the learners response. Technologies that have been developed by instructional designers are often marketed to educators as "validated" and "teacher proof," removing any meaningful control of the learning process by the learners or the teachers. In this paper, we argue that technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from . In this way, learners function as designers, and the computers function as Mindtools for interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge. Mindtools are computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content they are studying (Jonassen, 1996). Mindtools scaffold different forms of reasoning about conent. That is, they require students to think about what they know in different, meaningful ways. For instance, using databases to organize students’ understanding of content organization necessarily engages them in analytical reasoning, where creating an expert system rule base requires them to think about the causal relationships between ideas. Students cannot use Mindtools as learning strategies without thinking deeply about what they are studying. <s> BIB002 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> Vygotsky theorized that instruction plays a key part in cognitive development by providing culturally evolved cognitive tools which, once internalized by the child, mediate and advance the child’s cog <s> BIB003 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> In this article, I describe a classroom investigation in which a group of prospective secondary mathematics teachers discovered theorems related to the power of a point using The Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP). The power of a point is defines as follows: Let P be a fixed point coplanar with a circle. If line PA is a secant line that intersects the circle at points A and B, then PA+ PB is a constant called the power of P with respect to the circle. In the investigation, the students discovered and unified the four theorems associated with the power of a point: the secant,secant theorem, the secant,tangent theorem, the tangent,tangent theorem, and the chord,chord theorem. In our journey the students and I also discovered two kinds of proofs that can be adapted to prove each of the four theorems. As teacher educators, we need to design learning tasks for future teachers that deepen their understanding of the content they are likely to teach. Having a profound understanding of a mathematical idea involves seeing the connectedness of mathematical ideas. By discovering and unifying the power,of,a,point theorems and proofs, these future teachers experienced what it means to understand a mathematical theorem deeply. GSP was an instrumental pedagogical tool that facilitated and supported the investigation in three main ways: as a management tool, motivational tool, and cognitive tool. The judicious use of technology enhances the teaching and learning of mathematics. Technology frees the user from performing repetitive and computational tasks, and thus, it allows more time for action and reflection. As a consequence, when students use technology as a cognitive tool, they develop a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts, patterns, and relationships (Battista, 2007; Clements, Sarama, Yelland, & Glass, 2008; Hollebrands, 2007; Hollebrands, Conner, & Smith, 2010; Hollebrands, Laborde, & Straβer, 2008; Hoyles & Healy, 1999; Hoyles & Jones, 1998; Koedinger, 1998; Laborde, 1998; Laborde, Kynigos, Hollebrands, & Straβer, 2006). <s> BIB004 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> Abstract Studies like the one conducted by Domahs et al. (2010, in Cognition) corroborate that finger counting habits affect how numbers are processed, and legitimize the assumption that this effect is culturally modulated. The degree of cultural diversity in finger counting, however, has been grossly underestimated in the field at large, which, in turn, has restricted research questions and designs. In this paper, we demonstrate that fingers as a tool for counting are not only naturally available, but are also—and crucially so—culturally encoded. To substantiate this, we outline the variability in finger counting and illustrate each of its types with instances from the literature. We argue that the different types of finger counting all constitute distinct representational systems, and we use their properties—dimensionality, dimensional representation, base and sub-base values, extendibility and extent, sign count, and regularity—to devise a typology of such systems. This allows us to explore representational effects, that is, the cognitive implications these properties may have, for instance, for the efficiency of information encoding and representation, ease of learning and mastering the system, or memory retrieval and cognitive load. We then highlight the ambivalent consequences arising from structural inconsistencies between finger counting and other modes of number representation like verbal or notational systems, and we discuss how this informs questions on the evolution and development of counting systems. Based on these analyses, we suggest some directions for future research in the field of embodied cognition that would profit substantially from taking into account the cultural diversity in finger counting. <s> BIB005 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> Most studies on bilingual phonological awareness suggested that children who were able to speak a second language performed better in phonological awareness tasks; some studies however found different results. This study revisited the issue by investigating the effect of Min dialect experience on Chinese children’s Mandarin phonological awareness. Children who were able to speak Mandarin only (M) were compared with children who were able to speak one dialect and Mandarin (DM) or two dialects and Mandarin (BiDM). In Experiment 1, 2nd and 4th grade M children performed better than their Minnan DM and Puxian DM counterparts in onset and rime judgement. Experiment 2 detected also an advantage of 1st and 2nd grade M children over their Mindong DM peers in syllable deletion and rime oddity. In Experiment 3, M children performed significantly better than their Mindong DM and Mindong–Puxian BiDM peers in 1st and 2nd grade and the difference remained significant between M children and BiDM children when IQ was controlled. The M advantage disappeared however in higher grades in all experiments. Generally the results suggested that Min dialect experience interfered with children’s performance in Mandarin phonological awareness, but the disadvantage disappeared as children proceeded to higher grades. The interference was discussed as consequence of subtractive bilingualism and Mandarin as cognitive tool. <s> BIB006 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Results <s> Metaphor has long been treated as a figure of speech whose function is to embellish the style of the text in translation studies. However, a cognitive approach has recently been applied to metaphor translation studies which views metaphors as basic resources for thought processes in human society. As a powerful cognitive tool of man to understand abstract concepts by way of more concrete ones, metaphor is ubiquitous in business English. This paper reviews main arguments of the cognitive approach to metaphor studies as well as introduces the major forms of metaphors in business English. Following the analysis of metaphor identification and factors that influence the comprehension of metaphorical meaning, the paper discusses methods of translating metaphors in business English from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. <s> BIB007
We found 196 peer-reviewed journal articles that referred to learning with cognitive tools (see Appendix for references). Figure 2 shows the frequency of these in the 37 years from 1982 to 2018. Very few articles (5%) referred to cognitive tools before 1998, and 75% appeared after 2004. A total of 116 (59.2%) referred to cognitive tools as technologies such as specific software applications or information and communications technology (ICT) in general, while the remaining 80 (40.8%) used the term to refer to non-technological tools, such as language, symbols, schemas, or metaphors. In the years 2005 to 2009, however, there was a marked increase (to 74%) in the proportion of articles referring to technological cognitive tools. The figure indicates usage of the term declined somewhat in recent years yet retains considerable currency. Table 1 shows the distribution of frequencies with which the articles referred to cognitive tools. Notably, out of 196 articles, 29 referred to cognitive tools only once, and 29 only twice. We found most of the articles provided no definition of the term and no explanation for why it was used. For instance, in an article titled "Strategy Instruction from a Sociocognitive Perspective", used the term only once, in the abstract, to refer to reading and writing strategies. They gave no justification for identifying the strategies as cognitive tools and gave no indication as to which conceptualisation of cognitive tools they were referring to. Articles that made more references to the term were more likely to provide definitions and explanations for using it. Table 2 shows the term cognitive tool was used mostly in areas of academic specialisation relating to education. In the table, "education" refers to educational specializations other than educational technology and educational psychology; and "other" refers to miscellaneous specialisations such as computer science, philosophy, and medicine. We observed that across the areas of academic specialisation, the concept of cognitive tool was used for widely varying purposes. For example, in sports psychology, it was used by , citing BIB001 , to emphasise the symbolic character of "basic action concepts" that constitute complex movements. Working in linguistics, BIB006 referred to bilingualism as a cognitive tool that affects the phonological awareness of children; while BIB005 developed a psychological hypothesis that finger counting is a culturally encoded and embodied cognitive tool. We have already noted how theorists have used the term cognitive tools to refer to a wide variety of concepts and software, and our systematic review found evidence for this variety across the research literature. Figure  3 shows the frequency distribution for the types we coded. Our categorisation scheme was adapted from the five categories identified by BIB002 which we added to, modified, and renamed to accommodate the references to cognitive tools we encountered. The template or database category included tools that enabled learners to organise information and identify the relationship between items . The visualisation category included concept maps and Vee diagrams (Afamasaga-fuata'i, 2008), Geometer's Sketchpad BIB004 , computer-based animations to facilitate learning geography , and other types of visualisations. The digital environments category included references to specific simulations (e.g., ; microworlds (e.g., and computer games (e.g., . The social environments category included specific references to educational media that facilitated communication among learners, such as online discussion forums and argument-sharing tools (e.g., .The language category covered references to nontechnological tools denoting word knowledge ); language acquisition (De la Colina & Mayo, 2009), and so on. The schema category covered articles referring to either the general concept of schema (e.g., BIB003 or instances of schemas such as mental models of acids for chemistry students (e.g., . As shown in Figure 3 , categories appearing less frequently were symbols (e.g., , hypermedia , and metaphors BIB007 . Two miscellaneous categories were created to account for references to tools that could not be readily classified or were extremely general. The miscellaneous ICT category was used for all general references to ICT. The miscellaneous non-technology category covered a wide variety of concepts or operations that authors claimed to be cognitive tools, such as inductive generalisation when used by children to make sense of their environment (Puche-Navarro & Rodriguez-Burgos, 2015) and pedagogical literacy when used by teachers to develop how they reason about their professional practice ). There were 108 empirical studies, and the other 88 articles were non-empirical reviews or theoretical analyses. The empirical studies investigated the use of cognitive tools on participants at different levels of schooling consisting of preschool (6), elementary (22), secondary (18), undergraduate (39), graduate (2), in-service teachers or instructors (10), adult language learners (5), and others (6). These studies most often used academic content from science, mathematics, and language learning. Many of them, however, were laboratory studies of motivation, problem-solving, and learning strategies that used content not necessarily drawn from academic programs. Most of the studies investigating the use of cognitive tools by university students gathered data from courses in which they enrolled. In the 61 empirical studies examining the effectiveness of using cognitive tools to enhance learning or motivation, 42 (68.9%) claimed the tools were effective, 12 (19.7%) found no significant effect, and 7 (11.5%) observed that other factors such as individual difference could moderate the effects of using the tools.