Current Theory
Christopher Drew, in his editorial article for the 2019 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 35(2), echoed Jonassen’s earlier rationale for using computers as cognitive tools. Amongst these learning with and not from technology, as well as an emphasis on student-led learning in order to extend higher-order cognition. Drew further highlighted the question of relevance and applicability of the mindtools concept as posed by current researchers and practitioners of educational technology given the rapidly evolving nature of the field.
Herrington and Parker (2013) questioned how current students could leverage the use of technology in order to increase their learning and cognition. Drew highlighted recent developments in personalised technology such as mobile devices, social networking sites, wearable technologies and technologies that track human behaviours and adapt accordingly (Ge, et al., 2019). He therefore saw the need to revisit the concept of mindtools to include its relevance to technological advancement, learning theory, pedagogy, instructional design, cognitive science & psychology (Drew, 2019).
Current scholars of cognitive tools (Pakdaman-Savoji, et al., 2019) highlighted the challenge with regards its definition. They identified common attributes across all the previous literature on mindtools and divided them into the following 3 categories: 1) representation, 2) interactivity and 3) distributed cognition (Salomon, year). They based the notion of cognitive tools on links to earlier theories of Cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1930/1999), computer technologies (Pea, 1985), Constructivism (Jonassen, 1995), scaffolded cognitive processing (Collins & Knoetze, 2014), knowledge visualization (Scaife & Rogers, 1996) and metaphor.
Pakdaman-Savoji, Nesbit and Gajdamascho (2019) in their analysis of technologies and designs for learning outlined many differing earlier viewpoints in this regard. Vygotsky (1978), who saw technology as a tool for mediation between learner and teacher, and Taylor (1980), who proposed mindtools (calculators) be used only as aid to complete secondary tasks, views are in stark contrast to those of Piaget, Pea (1985), Salomon, Perkins & Globberson (1991) and Jonassen (2011). The latter scholars argued the use of mindtools to ‘shift from cognitive amplification to reorganization’ (Pea, 1985), learn with technology, not from technology (Salomon, et al., 1991), mindtools be selected according to type of thinking that requires scaffolding (Jonassen, 2011) and mindtools based on the theory of constructivism (Piaget).
The future of cognitive tools according to Pakdaman-Savoji, Nesbit and Gajdamascho (2019) is therefore be based on the principles of: 1) representation (Pea, 1985, Jonassen, et al., 1998), 2) interaction and 3) distributed cognition (Dror & Harnad, 2008).
Through the use of CHAT (cultural historical activity theory), Tan (2019) proposed that the future of cognitive tools not only embrace the social & cognitive domain, but also take emotional states & higher order cognition into account. These views can be linked to self-determination theory and motivational & emotional function in learning as outlined by Ge, et al., (2019).
Key insights from the current literature on cognitive tools is that 1) the concept of mindtools is evolving with technological advancement and 2) the intersection of cognitive domain with social, emotional & motivational domains is growing in relevance for the future of learning (Drew, 2019).