The purpose of this study was to use multiple data sources, both objective and subjective, to capture students' thinking processes as they were engaged in problem solving, examine the cognitive tool use patterns, and understand what tools were used and why they were used. The findings of this study confirmed previous research and provided clear empirical evidence supporting the theoretical notion that technology-based cognitive tools play an important role in assisting students' problem solving. Students' tool use patterns were discussed in the context of their problem solving.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeraS. (2004). The nature of cognitive tool use in a hypermedia learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
2.
BeraS.LiuM. (2006). Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 295–319.
3.
HarperB.HedbergJ.CorderoyB.WrightR. (2000). Employing cognitive tools within interactive multimedia applications. In LajoieP. S. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, Volume two: No more walls (pp. 227–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
HawkinsJ.PeaR. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.
5.
IiyoshiT.HannafinM. J.WangF. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions, and applications. Educational Media International, 42, 281–296.
6.
JonassenD. H. (2000). Toward a meta-theory of problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
7.
JonassenD. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.
8.
JonassenD. H.ReevesT. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.
9.
KimB.ReevesT. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35, 207–256.
10.
KozmaR. B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools. Educational Technology, 27, 20–25.
11.
LajoieS. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In LajoieS. P.DerryS. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
LajoieS. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
LinnM. C.ClarkD.SlottaJ. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration, Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
14.
LiuM.BeraS. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21.
15.
LiuM.BeraS.CorlissS. B.SvinickiM. D.BethA. D. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 309–334.
16.
LiuM.WilliamsD.PedersenS. (2002). Alien Rescue: A problem-based hypermedia learning environment for middle school science. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(3), 255–270.
17.
MayerR. E.WittrockM. C. (1996) Problem-solving transfer. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.
18.
OliverK.HannafinM. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem-solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75–92.
19.
PeaR. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167–182.
20.
PellegrinoJ. (2004). Complex learning environments: Connecting learning theories, instructional design, and technology (pp. 25–48). In SeelN. M.DijkstraS.MarraR. (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
SalomonG. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N.GlobersonT. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9.
23.
ShinN.JonassenD.McGeeS. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.
24.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
SwellerJ.ChandlerP. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.
26.
ZhangJ. (1990). The interaction of internal and external information in a problem solving task (Technical Report 9005). San Diego: University of California, Department of Cognitive Science.
27.
ZhangJ. (1997). The nature of external representation in problem-solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179–217.
28.
ZhangJ.NormanD. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.
