Previous research and development with cognitive tools has been limited by an inadequate conceptualization of the complexity underlying their nature and affordances for supporting learning and performance. This paper provides a new perspective on cognitive tools through the lens of the theories of distributed cognition and expertise. The learner, tool, and activity form a joint learning system, and the expertise in the world should be reflected not only in the tool but also in the learning activity within which learners make use of the tool. This enhanced perspective is used to clarify the nature of cognitive tools and distinguish them from other types of computer tools used in learning contexts. We have classified cognitive tools considering how expertise is classified: domain-independent (general) cognitive tools, domain-generic cognitive tools, and domain-specific cognitive tools. The implications are presented in reference to research, development, and practice of cognitive tools. The capabilities of cognitive tools should be differentiated from those of the human, but regarded as part of the system of expertise. Cognitive tools should be accompanied by appropriate learning activities, and relevant learner performance should then be assessed in the context of tool use.

Alignment between content standards and standardized tests is a significant issue to society, science pedagogy, and test validation. To better understand the issues related to alignment, this study compares the alignment in physics among three education systems: Jiangsu (China), New York State (United States), and Singapore. The same coding framework for content standards and standardized tests is used to compute the alignment indices in the three education systems. It was found that there was a statistically significant alignment between the New York content standard and the standardized test for physics, but there was not a statistically significant alignment for Chinese and Singapore physics. The insignificant alignment for Chinese and Singapore physics was due to a shift toward higher level cognitive reasoning skills from content standards to standardized tests. For Chinese physics, the insignificant alignment was also due to a heavier emphasis on electricity in the test than in the content standard. Both significant and insignificant alignments may result in desirable and undesirable effects on guiding classroom instruction. Thus, ongoing study of the alignment between a science content standard and the standardized test is necessary for any education system, and alignment studies may be used as a means of teacher professional development for improving student achievement. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:777–797, 2009

No abstract

Innovative practice in a classroom adds challenges and tensions to programs and institutional structures in higher education. With the recent emphasis on curricula reform, there is a great focus on assessment and pedagogical practices to support student learning. To illustrate the tensions arising from these efforts, we present four pedagogical and assessment innovation approaches using both Shulman’s (2005) Signature Pedagogies and Tatar’s (2007) Design Tensions frameworks. The four approaches include problem-based learning, game-based learning, case-based learning, and technology-enhanced learning. A narrative for each approach examines and addresses tensions using Shulman’s (2005) surface, deep and implicit structures. We argue that there is an interconnected complexity and conflicting visions among the micro- (e.g., classroom or practicum), meso- (e.g., program), and macro- (e.g., institution) levels. We acknowledge that dynamic tensions continually exist and needs to be thoughtfully navigated in support of innovative assessment and pedagogies in higher education. Dans l’enseignement supérieur, les pratiques innovatrices en salle de classe ajoutent des défis et des tensions aux programmes et aux structures institutionnelles. Suite à l’importance accrue récemment attachée à la réforme des programmes d’études, l’accent est mis sur l’évaluation et les pratiques pédagogiques pour soutenir l’apprentissage des étudiants. Afin d’illustrer les tensions qui découlent de ces efforts, nous présentons quatre approches de pédagogie et d’évaluation innovatrices qui font appel à la fois aux cadres de Shulman, Signature Pedagogies (2005), et à ceux de Tatar, Design Tensions (2007). Les quatre approches comprennent l’apprentissage par problèmes, l’apprentissage fondé sur le jeu, l’apprentissage basé sur des cas et l’apprentissage amélioré par les technologies. Chaque approche est examinée et traite des tensions qui en découlent en faisant appel aux structures de surface, profondes et implicites de Shulman (2005). Nous soutenons qu’il existe une complexité inter-connectée et des visions conflictuelles aux niveaux micro (par ex. en salle de classe ou durant les stages), meso (par ex. dans les programmes) et macro (par ex. au niveau de l’établissement). Nous reconnaissons que les tensions dynamiques existent de façon continue et doivent être soigneusement examinées pour soutenir l’évaluation et les pédagogies innovatrices dans l’enseignement supérieur.

Earlier quantitative studies in computer-supported collaborative learning identified 'Productive Failure' (Kapur, Cognition and Instruction 26(3):379-424, 2008) as a phenomenon in which students experiencing relative failures in their initial problem-solving efforts subsequently performed better than others who were in a condition not involving an initial failure. In this qualitative study, we examine the problem-solving dynamics of two dyads: a Productive Failure (PF) dyad who initially received a low-structured activity and a Non-Productive Failure (N-PF) dyad who initially received a high-structured activity. Both dyads then received an identical high-structured problem-solving activity. This process was repeated using multiple sets of problems, and this paper will discuss two sets. Interactions of the two dyads were logged. Data for this study included video conversations of the dyads, screen captures of their use of a computer model, and their submitted answers. Results indicated that initial struggle and failed attempts provided an opportunity to the PF dyad to expand their observation space and thus engage deeply with the computer model. Over-scripting proved to be detrimental in creation of a mutual meaning-making space for the N-PF dyad. This paper suggests that the relative success of the PF dyad might be viewed in terms of induction of reflective reasoning practices.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract