The Bounds of Cognition

Adams, Fred; Aizawa, Ken

doi:10.1002/9781444391718

Cited by 219 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

280

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Suchman (1987) and Nardi (1996) have helped to establish ethnographic methods-oriented to community phenomena-as relevant to CSCL and CSCW research. Unfortunately, even perspectives like situated cognition can take a reductive turn: Recent commentaries on situated cognition (Robbins & Aydede, 2009) and distributed cognition (Adams & Aizawa, 2008) frame the issues at the individual level, to the extreme of reducing all cognitive phenomena to neural functions.…”

Section: Theories Of Community Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW Together

Stahl

2013

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) are centrally concerned with teamwork, learning, problem solving, knowledge building, task accomplishment and other cognitive achievements by small groups of people. There are many theories useful for framing the cognitive work that groups undertake in CSCL and CSCW settings, and they may in principle not be reducible to a single theory. However, they seem foundational for both CSCL and CSCW, including their synthesis in CSCL-at-Work. Collaboration research explores questions involving numerous distinct-though interacting-phenomena at multiple levels of description. It is important to conceptualize these group activities as involving individual participants in group processes within larger community contexts. The useful approach may be to clearly distinguish levels such as individual, small-group and community units of analysis, and to differentiate terminology for discussing these different levels. Theory in general has evolved dramatically over the ages, with a trend to extend the unit of cognition beyond the single idea or even the individual mind. Seminal theoretical works influential within collaboration research suggest a post-cognitive approach to group cognition as a complement to-if not a foundation for-analyzing cognition of individuals or of communities-of-practice. While CSCL and CSCW can both build upon shared theories of cognition, they may derive different implications from those theories as relevant for students versus professionals and may converge in cases of CSCW at Work. Theory for CSCL and CSCWThere is no one theory of collaboration in learning and working. Research in CSCL and CSCW is guided by and contributes to a diverse collection of theories. Even the word theory means different things to different researchers and plays various distinct roles within collaborative-learning work. The reading of the history of theory presented here is itself reflective of one theoretical stance among many held, implicitly or explicitly, by collaboration researchers.I originally tried to develop my theory of group cognition (Stahl, 2006) in response to issues of CSCL and CSCW software design. In particular, one of my research studies was an attempt to transform a basic CSCW system (BSCW) into a basic CSCL system (BCSCL or Synergia) (Ch. 7), exploring both mutual compatibilities and differences of emphasis between CSCL and CSCW. My other case studies can be categorized as either CSCL (Ch. 1, 2, 6, 12, 21) or CSCW (Ch.

show abstract

Section: Theories Of Community Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW Together

Stahl

2013

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And notice that the pivotal appeal to data from empirical psychology here means that the sceptical challenge is arguably founded not on some un-argued-for pro-inner prejudice or unwarranted conservatism, but on a perfectly healthy respect for the methods and results of contemporary cognitive science. 2 anti-EXTENDED onslaughts of Rupert (2004) and Adams and Aizawa (2008), from whom the psychological examples mentioned in the main text are drawn. It is important to stress two things, however.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, it is about equality of opportunity: avoiding a rush to judgment based on spatial location alone. The Parity Principle was meant to engage our rough sense of what we might intuitively judge to belong to the domain of cognition-rather than, say, that of 3 What I have called a 'theory-loaded, locationally uncommitted account of the cognitive' is tantamount to what Adams and Aizawa (2008) call a 'mark of the cognitive'. Although this is not the place to go into detail, my view is that Adams and Aizawa are right that EXTENDED needs a mark of the cognitive, but wrong about what that mark might be.…”

Section: Theories and Motleysmentioning

confidence: 99%

In search of clarity about parity

Wheeler

2010

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First paragraph: Andy Clark's Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension (Clark 2008) is, among other things, a characteristically bold and timely defence of the extended mind hypothesis (Clark and Chalmers 1998). According to this hypothesis, which Clark here calls EXTENDED, the physical mechanisms of mind (the material vehicles that realize cognition) sometimes extend beyond the traditional boundaries of skull and skin, such that "actions and loops through nonbiological structure [sometimes count] as genuine aspects of extended cognitive processes" (p. 85). In the brief treatment that follows I cannot hope to engage with everything that is worthy of discussion in Clark's rich and exciting text, so I shall content myself with exploring and assessing a central thread in his argument for EXTENDED. That thread revolves around what is called the parity principle. Here is how that principle is formulated in Supersizing the Mind (p. 77, drawing on Clark and Chalmers 1998, p. 8): If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it to go on in the head, we would have no hesitation in accepting as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world is (for that time) part of the cognitive process. The general idea is this: if there is functional equality with respect to governing intelligent behaviour (for example, in the way stored information is poised to guide such behaviour), between the causal contribution of certain internal elements and the causal contribution of certain external elements, and if the internal elements concerned already qualify as the proper parts of a cognitive trait (system, state, process, mechanism, architecture...), then there is no good reason to deny equivalent status to the relevant external elements. Parity of causal contribution mandates parity of status with respect to the cognitive

show abstract

“…Recent commentaries on situated cognition (Robbins & Aydede, 2009) and distributed cognition (Adams & Aizawa, 2008) frame the issues at the individual level, even reducing all cognitive phenomena to neural phenomena. At the other extreme, social theories focus on community phenomena like division of labor, apprenticeship training, linguistic structure, laboratory organization.…”

Section: The Need For a New Science Of Group Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Cognition as a Foundation for the New Science of Learning

Stahl

2010

New Science of Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the new global world, it is time to recognize that knowledge is primarily produced socially and progressively, not just by spontaneous acts of isolated minds. Individuals participate in this as knowledge learners, knowledge users and knowledge builders, predominantly through their interactions in small groups. The cognitive work of small groups can be distinct from individual thinking and community knowledge processing. We need a new science of group learning to complement our sciences of individual learning and community knowledge building. In particular, we need a science that will help us to realize the potential of computer networking to foster the formation of virtual groups and computersupported collaborative learning. The construct of group cognition provides a theoretical and practical foundation for developing the needed science, for analyzing the work of small groups and for designing effective collaboration software. The Virtual Math Teams Project provides a model of such scientific research. Along with related explorations of group processes, it has already started to produce concrete analyses of group cognition and to develop a multi-faceted online educational environment. A science of group cognition can systematically provide findings that are objective, reliable and generalizable through its interpretive case studies. With its focus on the group as the unit of description, group cognition joins other post-cognitive theories, which extend the analysis of cognition beyond the psychological individual. As the pivotal middle ground in which knowledge is primordially co-constructed, the group provides a foundation for sciences of learning at the individual, small group and community levels.

show abstract

The Bounds of Cognition

Cited by 219 publications

References 0 publications

Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW Together

Theories of Collaborative Cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW Together

In search of clarity about parity

Group Cognition as a Foundation for the New Science of Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About