The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <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> Tools for constructivist learning <s> Abstract Three constructivist paradigms are distinguished. Exogenous constructivism (rooted in a mechanistic metaphor) emphasizes the reconstruction of structures preformed in the environment. Endogenous constructivism (rooted in an organismic metaphor) emphasizes the coordination of previous organismic structures. Dialectical constructivism (rooted in a contextualistic metaphor) emphasizes the construction of new structures out of organism/environment interaction. It is suggested that more general metatheories integrating exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical aspects of the construction of knowledge can and should be formulated. Such formulations would not attempt an impossible synthesis of the root metaphors, but rather integrate them in a coherent metatheory by specifying the boundary conditions in which each root metaphor best applies. An example of such a metatheory, based primarily on Piagetian ideas, is presented. <s> BIB002 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> Contemporary social problems typically involve many complex, interrelated dimensions--psychological, cultural, and institutional, among others. But today, the social sciences have fragmented into isolated disciplines lacking a common language, and analyses of social problems have polarized into approaches that focus on an individual's mental functioning over social settings, or vice versa. In Mind as Action, James V. Wertsch argues that current approaches to social issues have been blinded by the narrow confines of increasing specialization in the social sciences. In response to this conceptual blindness, he proposes a method of sociocultural analysis that connects the various perspectives of the social sciences in an integrated, nonreductive fashion. Wertsch maintains that we can use mediated action, which he defines as the irreducible tension between active agents and cultural tools, as a productive method of explicating the complicated relationships between human action and its manifold cultural, institutional, and historical contexts. Drawing on the ideas of Lev Vygotsky, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Kenneth Burke, as well as research from various fields, this book traces the implications of mediated action for a sociocultural analysis of the mind, as well as for some of today's most pressing social issues. Wertsch's investigation of forms of mediated action such as stereotypes and historical narratives provide valuable new insights into issues such as the mastery, appropriation, and resistance of culture. By providing an analytic unit that has the possibility of operating at the crossroads of various disciplines, Mind as Action will be important reading for academics, students, and researchers in psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, literary analysis, and philosophy (http://books.google.com/books?id=73Vv7Y3vf14C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false) <s> BIB003 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> Tools are extensions of human beings that partially differentiate humans from lower order species of animals. Other species of animals have discovered tools, but have been unable to conceive needs to construct tools or incorporate tools into their cultures. Throughout history, humans have developed mechanical tools to facilitate physical work. The wheel and lever provided humans with an enormous mechanical advantage. The industrial revolution added artificial sources of power to extend that advantage. The electronic or information revolution has further extended that advantage by extending the functionality and speed of tools. Computers now perform tasks at speeds which are orders of magnitude greater than humans with or without more primitive tools were capable of. <s> BIB004 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <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> BIB005 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> I. WHAT ARE MINDTOOLS? WHAT DO THEY DO? 1. What Are Mindtools? 2. Critical Thinking: The Goal of Mindtools. II. SEMANTIC ORGANIZATION TOOLS. 3. Databases as Mindtools. 4. Semantic Networks (Concept Maps) as Mindtools. III. DYNAMIC MODELING TOOLS. 5. Spreadsheets as Mindtools. 6. Expert Systems as Mindtools. 7. Systems Modeling as Mindtools. 8. Microworlds as Mindtools. IV. INTERPRETATION TOOLS. 9. Intentional Information Search Tools as Mindtools. 10. Visualization Tools as Mindtools. V. KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION TOOLS. 11. Hypermedia as Mindtools. VI. CONVERSATION TOOLS. 12. Synchronous Conferencing as Mindtools. 13. Asynchronous Conferencing as Mindtools. VII. IMPLEMENTING MINDTOOLS. 14. Entailments of Mindtools. 15. Assessing Learning with Mindtools. <s> BIB006 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> The changes that have occurred in accepted approaches to teaching and learning in recent years have been underpinned by shifts in psychological and pedagogical theory, culminating in moves towards a constructivist view of learning. This paper looks at the consequences of these theoretical shifts for Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). ::: ::: Moshman has identified three interpretations of constructivism: endogenous constructivism which emphasises learner exploration, exogenous constructivism which recognises the role of direct instruction, but with an emphasis on learners actively constructing their own knowledge representations and dialectical constructivism which emphasises the role of interaction between learners, their peers and teachers. This classification scheme provides a framework for looking at the various constructivist approaches to CAL. ::: ::: For example, constructivist CAL materials that draw on the endogenous view include hypermedia environments, simulations and microworlds. Materials that draw on the exogenous view include learner controlled tutorials, cognitive tools and practice modules. Lastly, materials that draw on the dialectical view include Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) tools and support (or scaffolding) tools. <s> BIB007 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> The existence of objective knowledge and the possibility of communicating it by means of language have traditionally been taken for granted by educators. Recent developments in the philosophy of science and the historical study of scientific accomplishments have deprived these presuppositions of their former plausibility. Sooner or later, this must have an effect on the teaching of science. In this paper I am presenting a brief outline of an alternative theory of knowing that takes into account the thinking organism's cognitive isolation from ‘reality’. This orientation was proposed by Vico at the beginning of the 18th century, disregarded for two hundred years, and then propounded independently by Piaget as a developmentally grounded constructivist epistemology. The paper focuses specifically on the adaptive function of cognition, Piaget's scheme theory, the process of communication, and the subjective perspective on social interaction. In the concluding section it then suggests some of the consequences the shift of epistemological presuppositions might have for the practice of teaching. <s> BIB008 </s> The conceptualisation of cognitive tools in learning and teachnology: A review <s> Tools for constructivist learning <s> Although the characteristics of PBL (problem focused, student centered, self-directed, etc.) are well known, the components of a problem-based learning environment (PBLE) and the cognitive scaffolds necessary to support learning to solve different kinds of problems with different learners is less clear. This paper identifies the different components of a PBLE, including a problem to solve, worked examples, case studies, analogues, prior experiences, alternative perspectives, and simulations. Additionally, different cognitive scaffolds necessary to help students interpret and use those components include analogical encoding, causal relationships, argumentations, questioning, modeling, and metacognitive regulation. Recommendations are provided for matching components and scaffolds with learners’ needs when solving different kinds of problems. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1256 The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning • 96 D. Jonassen The Nature of Problems There are many issues in implementing PBL into various curricula. An important issue has to do with the extent of the curriculum that is converted to PBL. Many reports illustrate the effect of single PBL modules inserted in courses including biomedical engineering (LaPlaca, Newstetter, & Yoganathan, 2001), chemical engineering (Cline & Powers, 1997), software engineering (Armarego, 2002; Mitchell & Delaney, 2004), and thermal physics (van Kampen, Nanahan, Kelly, McLoughlin, & O’Leary, 2004). Other implementations have converted existing semester-long courses to PBL courses, such as software engineering (Dunlap, 2005) and materials science (Henry, Jonassen, Winholtz, & Khanna, 2010). Some of the most successful implementations of PBL have employed PBL throughout an entire curriculum, enabling students to develop the study strategies and self-regulation skills necessary for success in a PBL environment. Because PBL represents a significant shift in learning for most students, they require support in adapting their learning methods. We cannot assume that learners are naturally skilled in problem solving, especially complex and ill-structured problems such as those required in most PBL programs. Another important issue focuses on the nature of the problem being solved and the nature of the learners. Figure 1 illustrates external and internal factors that affect problem solving. As depicted in Figure 1, external factors that affect problem solving include the perspective, dynamicity, structure, difficulty, and context. Based on these differences, Jonassen (2000) suggested a typology of problems on a continuum from well-structured to ill-structured, including story problems, rule using/rule induction, decision making, troubleshooting, diagnosis-solution, strategic performance, policy, design, and dilemmas. Factors that are internal to the learners include the learner’s levels of prior knowledge, experience, reasoning ability, various cognitive styles, and epistemic beliefs (Jonassen, 2007). It is important to note that these are not hard categories. Problems may be represented in different categories, depending on the nature of the learning desired. For example, most of the ill-structured problems (diagnosis, policy, design, etc.) can be represented as decision-making problems. Story Problems. Students in formal education most often learn to solve story problems in mathematics and the sciences. Story problems typically present a set of values embedded within a shallow story context at the end of textbook chapters. Story problems are normally solved when learners identify key values in the short scenario, select the appropriate algorithm, apply the algorithm to generate a quantitative answer, and hopefully check their responses (Sherrill, 1983). These are the most common kind of problems solved in formal education settings. Unfortunately, too many educators believe that learning to solve story problems will naturally transfer to complex, everyday problems (Jonassen, 2000). They do not. Supporting Problem Solving in PBL 97 • volume 5, no. 2 (Fall 2011) Fure 1. Fators in pblem soing. <s> BIB009
The essence of constructivism is the belief, advocated by Piaget and now widely accepted by many psychologists and educational theorists, that humans actively build much or all of what they know and act as decision-making agents in doing so BIB002 BIB008 . During the 1990s, as the constructivist principle gained currency in the field of learning technologies, computer-based cognitive tools were often portrayed as key components of learning environments in which learners could operate as they engaged with a subject as autonomous agents BIB007 ). Jonassen and his colleagues wrote extensively about computer-based cognitive tools, sometimes calling them "mindtools", and argued for their significance in constructivist learning  BIB006  BIB005  . Cognitive tools are defined as knowledge representation tools that can "enhance the power of human beings during thinking, problem solving, and learning" (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996, p. 693) , "activate cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies" (Jonassen, 1992, p. 2) , and "function as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning'' (Jonassen, 1996, p. 9) . While Salomon (1993) saw computer-based cognitive tools as scaffolds whose benefits lay in the cognitive effects remaining after the tools have been removed, Jonassen and Reeves argued that performance with a tool can be a goal in itself because technologies are an inevitable and ongoing component of contemporary contexts. They believed cognitive tools had the potential to open a path to constructivist learning and transferable knowledge in educational systems dominated by routinised practice and reproduction of given information. Jonassen (2000) described how students' intentional engagement with cognitive tools promotes meaningful learning and reflective thinking. Noting that each type of computer-based cognitive tool uses a particular formalism to organise information, Jonassen and his colleagues argued that the availability of many types of these tools, from spreadsheets to hypermedia, affords opportunities for multiple representation of knowledge  BIB005 . They claimed students would reap far greater benefit from designing and building new artefacts with the tools rather than interacting with them as users or consumers. Students who work with and internalise multiple representations were theorised to have a deeper and more flexible understanding of a topic that would transfer more naturally to real-life situations. Jonassen and his colleagues categorised databases and concept mapping software as semantic organisation tools because both implement formalisms for explicitly representing relationships between objects or concepts. Spreadsheets, system modelling software, expert systems, and programmable environments were grouped together as dynamic modelling tools because they allow students to build models so they can ask "what if" questions whose answers depend on hypothetical or variable conditions. Software that can generate images of abstract or normally invisible phenomena, like molecular structures, were counted as visualisation tools. Hypermedia publishing tools, perhaps best exemplified today by Wikipedia, were categorised as knowledge construction tools. Finally, online conferencing software, computer-supported collaborative argumentation systems, and the like were categorised as socially shared cognitive tools. BIB009 emphasised that tools supplied in a learning environment should be selected according the types of thinking that require scaffolding. He observed, for example, that solving design problems requires construction of mental models, a process that can be scaffolded by the use of modelling software. Much of the research over the last decade reporting on diverse cognitive tools continued to cite the taxonomy developed by  and BIB005 . Among these, Collins and Knoetze (2014) described how undergraduates can develop procedural and conceptual knowledge by working with an expert system shell on discovery learning tasks, and studied the use of web-based tools for authentic learning in first-year teacher education. Whereas BIB001 emphasised the interaction between the learner and teacher (or more knowledgeable other) and saw the cognitive tool as mediating this key interaction,  ,  , and BIB004 foregrounded interactions between the learner and the cognitive tool.  claimed that cognitive tools should be "learner-controlled not teacher-controlled" because they fail when used for "traditional academic tasks set by teachers" (p. 697). They admitted that teachers have a guiding role as long as the problems to which cognitive tools are applied originate with learners. This is a far cry from the Vygotskian understanding that cognitive tools constrain as well as empower the endogenous predispositions of learners BIB003 .  argued against the use of computer-based ITSs because they saw such systems as only mimicking the traditional controlling role of teachers. In the introductory chapter to their book Computers as Cognitive Tools, Derry and Lajoie (1993) outlined a fundamental division then existing in the field of learning technology between the model builders designing ITSs that incorporate student models  and non-modelers like  and BIB004 . B. noted this same lack of consensus in the conceptualisation of cognitive tools and observed that as the term became widely used in the field of learning technologies it lost its original grounding in psychological theory. As justification of the earlier categorisation by  and BIB005 , they proposed only software programs that contribute a middle level of executive control qualify as cognitive tools. Programming languages were excluded because they are too passive, and ITSs because they take on too much control. Kim and Reeves considered databases, concept mapping tools, simulation tools, and microworlds to be cognitive tools because they contribute expertise that shapes the nature of the activity and at the same time leave much of the higher-order decision-making to the learner. Student-centred learning theorists conceptualised cognitive tools as instrumental in reducing the cognitive load associated with open learning environments and as essential catalysts for learning in complex environments. M. C.  reviewed the theoretical foundations of software-based cognitive tools and presented a conceptualisation emphasising social construction of scientific knowledge in collaborative learning environments. More than earlier constructivist theorists, Kim's social-constructivist conceptualisation recognised the importance of instructors' roles in selecting problems and projects, focusing students' attention, diagnosing student difficulties, providing just-in-time assistance, mediating student collaborations, and providing formative feedback.