Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
knowledge through their interactions with others, especially through socio-cognitive
conflicts (Dosie &Mugny, 1984). Today, conflict theory is used in the design of col-
laborative learning environments to stimulate interaction. Social constructivism has
also been used to guide the design of various teaching and learning settings, espe-
cially for collaborative technology-supported learning environments where multiple
forms of communication support interactions among learners and teachers. Web 2.0
supports constructive learning by providing opportunities for students to publish
artifacts of their learning and to provide feedback and reflections on the artifacts of
their peers.
Situated cognition
argues that learning is a function of the activities, contexts,
and cultures in which it occurs (Lave, 1991). Language learning, tool using, and
cultural adaptation
should be situated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). From this
perspective, cognitive tasks cannot be separated from social tasks. Environments are
integral parts of cognitive activities and not merely sets of circumstances in which
context-independent cognitive processes unfold. Situated cognition views learning
in terms of the process of entering a communities of practice. These processes
involve groups of learners working together to accomplish common goals. This
usually involves collaboration between learner with different roles and experiences
(Brown et al., 1989; Clancey, 1995). As newcomers move from the peripheries of
communities to their centers, they become more actively engaged in community cul-
ture and increasingly assume the roles of experts (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning,
both in and out of school, advances through collaborative social interaction and
the social construction of knowledge. Web 2.0 can put the theory of situated cog-
nition into practice by providing environments for pedagogical activities in which
knowledge is dynamically and collaboratively constructed.
Shared cognition
emphasizes the fact that socially shared meanings cannot be
reduced to representations in the minds of solitary learners, but rather as arising
through social interactions among groups of learners (Resnick, Levine, & Teasley,
1991). These interactions include both verbal and non-verbal communication and
the resulting artifacts. Shared cognition specifies that knowledge and skills are
acquired in the contexts in which they are exercised (Brown et al., 1989; Lave &
Wenger, 1991). Thus, shared cognition and situated cognition are highly inter-
twined. Shared cognition views collaborative learning as the process of building and
maintaining shared understandings in authentic learning environments (Roschelle &
Teasley, 1995). The principles of shared cognition are often realized in collabora-
tive learning. They guide the design of knowledge building on web 2.0. However,
the needs of team members must be clearly defined. That is, the notion of “shared”
in shared cognition needs to be operationalized. Advancements such as web 2.0
offer opportunities for investigating notions of “sharedness” beyond traditional
face-to-face communication.
Distributed cognition
argues that cognition in not only in the head but is also
distributed among learners and tools (Hutchins, 1995). Distributed cognition is dis-
tributed because the knowledge and effort required to solve problems are distributed
among learners and environments. There are several views of how cognition is dis-
tributed (Salomon, 1993b). For instance, Saloman (1993a) sees cognition as rooted
