Comparing Distributed Cognition in Two Lessons – BlogPost Three

For my final distributed cognition post, I will compare distributed cognition in two different lessons using the CTOM framework as discussed primarily by Martin (2012). CTOM stands for connection, translation, off-loading, and monitoring. (I had intended to write two articles on this topic and talk about each lesson separately, but it made more sense to combine and compare them.)

I observed both lessons on different days at Beachwood High School. I observed Mrs. Matthews’ African American literature and honors ninth grade English classes.

What is the CTOM Framework?

Here, I’ll say Martin’s definition/ideas then my own. I realize this is a lot of quoting, but it will really help strengthen my analysis of the lessons if you have both a professional definition and my own thoughts.

Connection: Martin (2012) states that “it must be possible for information to pass between the systems, whether actively and intentionally through explicit messages, or passively and incidentally, through shared connection to some sort of intermediary.”

Essentially, the technology used for distributive cognition needs to connect the user with some larger database, service, group of people, or other tool for learning.

Translation: Martin (2012) cites Kaput (1992) when he describes translation as “the transformation of information from one representational system to another.”

Translation is, in my own words, taking one set of ideas and putting it into another medium. For example, writing down what the teacher says in a notebook is a way of translating verbal language into written language.

Off–Loading: Martin (2012) states that off-loading is “a change in the distribution of tasks and subtasks across systems.” He further explains that “off-loading is always in aid of efficiency, and it can aid coordination by freeing up cognitive resources so a person (or other cognitive system) can focus more directly on the task of coordination itself” (Martin, 2012).

Off-loading means delegating certain tasks to technology or other tools so that the learner frees him/herself up to work on the main learning objective. I think that off-loading can lead to deskilling if it is used improperly. For example, off-loading multiplication to a calculator may result in a student never knowing how to do multiplication in the student’s head. When off-loaded AFTER the student has learned multiplication, it helps the student move more quickly through advanced math problems and does not deskill the student. (I talk about deskilling in Distributed Cognition in the Classroom – BlogPost Two)

Monitoring: Martin (2012) defines monitoring as “the function of assessing the quality of the coordination between systems and providing this information as feedback.”

Using technology can allow teachers to monitor students’ progress and understanding. For example, tools like Google Docs and Google Slides show teachers what each individual student contributed, which helps the teacher gauge each student’s understanding of the material.

Lesson 1

Mrs. Matthews opened up a Google Doc to go over the requirements for her African American Literature class’s Participatory Action Research Project. The due dates for the project were:

Oct. 24 – Decide topics of interest

Oct. 31 – Decide committee

Nov. 7 – Begin research

Nov. 14 – Check-in with teacher and first drafts

Dec. 12  – Presentations

In addition to these dates, the students had to have at least 3 committee meetings. The students also had to pick an end goal. Some examples were:

• Raise awareness
• Letter-writing campaign
• Open forum
• Write a policy change
• Bring in a guest speaker
• Start a club

In the lesson, the teacher showed the students some research sites for them to start looking at, so they could form groups and pick topics. She showed them this by connecting her laptop to the projector and going to the sites herself. She also talked about library databases that the students could use. I wish she had gone into detail about HOW to use these search engines and databases, but perhaps she got to that in a later lesson.

CTOM Framework Applied to Lesson 1:

The lesson was a great introduction to the students’ project and hopefully helped them get a better idea of the online sources that are out there. Now, I will jump right into the CTOM Framework.

Connection: The teacher used her laptop to connect to the projector. She then used the internet to connect her students to various databases to find information. She showed them sites on the projector screen, then they went to the sites on their own personal laptops.

Translation: The teacher translated her spoken directions into written directions via a Google Doc that the students could view as many times as they needed.

Off-Loading: Rather than going out and collecting data themselves, the students could cite the published research of others to help strengthen their arguments. Although, some students did elect to send out surveys to their peers as well. I think that’s really awesome. First-hand research always seems more exciting because it’s more personal to the students and their audience. (Their audience would be their peers and whomever they choose to include in the project.) Regardless, using online sources takes the pressure off of students to come up with research and helps the students learn how to cite.

Monitoring: I’m not sure how the teacher plans to monitor the project exactly. She set the due dates, but those aren’t what I’m talking about when I say monitoring. I’m going to say monitoring via technology is not applicable here. That happens. Not every part of distributed cognition exists in every lesson.

Lesson 2

In Mrs. Matthews’ honors ninth grade English class, her students participated in a review of Octavia Butler’s Kindred. Mrs. Matthews opened a Google Doc (via laptop connected to the projector like last time) and made a T-chart that looked like this (but with a split in the middle, naturally):

“The Fall” – Examples of Power                                                                                  Commentary

 

 

Mrs. Matthews asked the students for their input and typed it into the chart herself.

CTOM Framework Applied to Lesson 2:

I liked the review, but some of the students were very bored. I wish she had shared the Google Doc with the students and let them type their thoughts themselves. It would’ve taken much longer and been messier, but they would have been much more engaged. Now on to the CTOM.

Connection: The connection is similar to the previous lesson. Mrs. Matthews connected her laptop to the projector and showed the students the chart. The students were able to access the notes after Mrs. Matthews shared it with them. They were not allowed to edit it, however. They would have to make a copy if they wanted to work on the notes more by themselves. Rather than connecting the students to a database, the notes connected them with the text in a more manageable and digestible way. The notes were the same for everyone as well, so in a way it connected them to each other. (It connected them not in collaboration but in having the exact same notes for every student. It helped level the playing field.)

Translation: The document was a way for the teacher to translate her students’ thoughts into written words. It also translated the complex ideas from the text into simpler, shorter, and more understandable bullet points that the students could use as a review and test prep.

Off-Loading: The Google Doc off-loaded notetaking onto the teacher. The students were supposed to give their thoughts about the power dynamics in the text, but a lot of the discussion was teacher driven. I didn’t like that part. I really wish she had let students write on the doc themselves. Even if they didn’t type it on their own devices, she could have let them come up to the front and type it on her computer. That would be akin to writing on the board. I think that would’ve boosted student engagement.

Monitoring: Unfortunately, there’s very little monitoring here. If the teacher had let the students type on the Doc themselves, she would have been able to see their thoughts written out in their own words. She did monitor the ones who spoke because she wrote down their ideas. However, she could not monitor the ones who did not speak. Had she let them write on the Doc, she could have gotten everyone’s ideas.

Works Cited

Martin, L. (2012). Connection, Translation, Off-Loading, and Monitoring: A Framework for Characterizing the Pedagogical Functions of Educational Technologies. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17(3), 87-107.

Distributed Cognition in the Classroom – BlogPost Two

Last time, I gave a brief overview of distributive cognition. In this article, I will examine how distributive cognition is present in the classroom I am observing. I am observing Mrs. Coleman’s 7th grade English class at Hathaway Brown Middle School.

Technology in the Classroom

I observed a lesson where students used their iPads to work on their essays about Lizzie Bright and the Buckminster Boy. They typed their drafts in Microsoft Word on their iPads. They also had the option to handwrite their drafts and take a picture to submit to the teacher. I noticed that each student has a keyboard extension for her iPad. I thought that was pretty cool because the extensions help teach students how to type while still allowing them to have the portability and touch screen functions of an iPad.

Distributed Cognition in Action

In this article, I want to examine the effects of, with, and through Microsoft Word on the students’ writing and learning capacity. Salomon and Perkins’ (2005) article talks about “effects with technology, how use of a technology often enhances intellectual performance; effects of technology, how using a technology may leave cognitive residues that enhance performance even without the technology; and effects through technology, how technology sometimes does not just enhance performance but fundamentally reorganizes it” (p. 72). Microsoft Word has all three kinds of effects. I will analyze how the tool affects the students’ essay writing and overall cognitive processing.

Effects OF: The effects OF technology mean what effects the technology has when it is withdrawn. By taking away the ability to type on a digital document, students are left with their ideas and thoughts about the topic. They won’t remember exactly what they typed, but hopefully they will remember their main ideas and how they structured the argument. One of the biggest benefits of writing essays is that students learn how to make persuasive arguments and provide evidence. The effects OF Microsoft Word are actually pretty similar to those of pencil-and-paper. Both teach students how to express and organize their ideas in writing.

However, another effect OF technology is deskilling. For example, spell check deskills students when they rely on it too much. Martin states that “technologies can fundamentally reconfigure the work done by individuals within the system, even when the work done by the overall system remains the same” (2012, 88). In other words, technology changes the work that students have to do. This could lead students to relying on computers for spelling rather than knowing how to spell. I suggest that students should alternate between hand-writing their work and typing it. Perhaps the teacher could do handwritten activities in class and reserve typing for major assignments like persuasive essays.

Effects WITH: The effects WITH technology mean what effects the technology has when the students are actively using it. By typing on a digital document, students have the freedom to move sentences, change the wording, restructure paragraphs, add/delete phrases, and more simply by clicking and highlighting. This would be much more difficult with pencil-and-paper. It would involve a lot of erasing and arrows that would ultimately make the page hard to read. Typing on a digital document helps students stay organized and make quick fixes. As a result, students can spend less time on the mechanics of writing and more time developing a solid argument.

Effects THROUGH: The effects THROUGH technology mean how technology transforms the way students do work. Going from handwriting to typing isn’t a strong example of total transformation. I don’t have much to say about effects THROUGH Microsoft Word as opposed to pencil-and-paper, so I’ll use a different comparison here. Going from a digital document to a text is more drastic. Writing an essay in Microsoft word conveys information in a thoughtful, formal manner. Writing a text on a phone conveys information in a short, terse, and often pictorial manner. Emojis could fundamentally change the way students write and speak. It hasn’t, however, because most students are able to separate essay-writing from text-writing. Texting has become an entirely new form of writing in itself as a result of technology.

Works Cited

Martin, L. (2012). Connection, Translation, Off-Loading, and Monitoring: A Framework for Characterizing the Pedagogical Functions of Educational Technologies. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17(3), 87-107.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (2005) Do Technologies Make Us Smarter? Intellectual Amplification With, Of and Through Technology. In: Robert Sternberg and David Preiss (Eds.).Intelligence and Technology: The Impact of Tools on the Nature and Development of Human Abilities. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Publishers. pp. 71-86.

What is Distributed Cognition? – BlogPost One

As part of my series on distributed cognition, I want to introduce the topic and explain its significance in the classroom. I will talk about more specific aspects of distributed cognition later, but this post will give you a brief overview of what distributed cognition is and what it looks like in action.

What is Distributed Cognition?

The Expert Opinion:

As stated by Rogers and Ellis (1994), “Distributed cognition is a theoretical and methodological framework that is currently being developed by Hutchins and his colleagues at the University of California, San Diego (Flor and Hutchins, 1992; Halverson 1992; Hutchins and Klausen, 1992; Hutchins, in press) to explain cognitive activities as embodied and situated within the work settings in which they occur.”

Similarly, Morgan, Brickell, and Harper (2008) define distributed cognition in relation to the environment. They state that “distributed cognition is a way to understand how people interact with their environment and how they can be enabled by the environment to undertake highly complex tasks that would usually be beyond the abilities of the unassisted individual.”

Martin (2012) says that distributed cognition includes “a powerful set of theories for considering the ways in which tools, signs, and technologies can change thinking and learning.”

In My Own Words:

Distributed cognition is about the interaction between individuals and their environment. By using tools, we enable ourselves to do things better and think more in-depth. For example, writing this article down on paper and passing it around from person to person would spread my message, but it is a lot easier and faster to post this article and let everyone have their own digital copy to read. Both methods convey the information to other people, but the digital method is far more efficient. Distributed cognition is about using technology and other tools to help us go farther and think more clearly.

Outside tools can make us smarter. We only need to utilize them. For example, I can see much farther through a telescope than with my unaided eyes. Distributed cognition involves elevating our current thinking and expanding our horizons. Using tools also has the ability to deskill us if we rely on them too much. For example, a phone’s tip calculator app makes it unnecessary for me to do the math in my head. It’s convenient, but I’ve basically forgotten how to do the math. (I know I just multiply by the decimal version of the percent you want to tip, but that’s rather cumbersome. I also know there are better ways of figuring it out, but why do that when I have a phone?) I’ll talk about deskilling and other possible issues with distributive cognition in my later articles.

In the Classroom:

Distributive cognition can be very useful in the classroom. Using technology like laptops or iPads for watching educational videos, viewing PowerPoints, collaborating on Google Docs, playing Kahoots, etc. can greatly enhance students’ learning. However, there are drawbacks like students getting distracted, the technology malfunctioning, people spreading inappropriate or inaccurate content, etc. Despite its drawbacks, using technology in the classroom boosts students’ thinking abilities and gives them real-world skills. In addition, distributive cognition does not have to be technology based. Even a notebook serves as a learning tool that helps aid students’ understanding and memory.

Works Cited

Martin, L. (2012). Connection, Translation, Off-Loading, and Monitoring: A Framework for Characterizing the Pedagogical Functions of Educational Technologies. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17(3), 87-107.

Morgan, M., Brickell, G., Harper, B. (2008). Applying distributed cognition theory to the redesign of the ‘Copy and Paste’ function in order to promote appropriate learning outcomes.  Computers & Education, 50(1), 125-147.

Robers, Y. & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed cognition: an alterative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 119-128.

WebPost 4: Classroom Technologies

At Hathaway Brown, Mrs. Coleman’s 7th graders use their personal iPads to complete their online assignments and activities. HB mostly uses Apple products. When students enter high school, however, they are allowed to use any device of their choosing as their technological tool. (The policy says they can pick their own device. I wonder if that includes cellphones. I’m only observing the 7th graders who must use iPads, so I’m not sure.) Students use a variety of applications to do their assignments, check their grades, and communicate with each other and their teachers.

Software Applications

I found a link on their website to a page that lists exactly what applications and services are being used school-wide. For the complete list, click here. I’ll do a quick overview of the more important and innovative applications.

Blackbaud, Naviance, and Powerschool (which recently bought and absorbed Schoology) are organizational and administrative tools. Teachers can post their grades and assignments here for students to complete and turn in. I am not sure which system HB uses. I know they use myHB to connect to these types of sites, but I am not sure exactly which application the 7th graders use. MyHB is the hub of all the school’s technology.

The 7th graders primarily use Gmail to communicate with their teachers and with each other.

BrainPop and Khan Academcy allow teachers to use instructional videos. The teacher can grade, lesson plan, tutor individual students, etc., while the students learn from a different teacher in the video. It also gives students another teacher to learn from, which may be beneficial if the teacher cannot reach the students through the teacher’s current teaching style.

Peardeck and PlayPosit let teachers embed videos and questions in their PowerPoints or on the PlayPosit site. This helps teachers check for understanding in the middle of instruction. It is a great way to include a formative assessment in the lesson.

Speaking of PowerPoints, like most schools, HB uses Microsoft Office. This includes Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and all that good stuff. It lets students create documents and presentations. HB uses Google’s version (Google Docs, Slides, etc.) of this as well.

Technological Impediments to Student Learning

YouTube is the biggest distractor. The 7th graders don’t seem to use social media much yet. They’re still a little young for that. They love YouTube though. When the teacher steps out of the room for any reason, the students usually go to YouTube to goof off. I also saw some students playing online games when they were supposed to be paying attention. I think they’re still in the flash-game-phase. I also know the students like collaborative online games like Minecraft and Roblox, but I’ve never seen them play those in class.

My Teacher’s Software Applications

Mrs. Coleman uses PowerPoint a lot. She lets students take notes on their iPads. She’ll create quizzes for her students to be taken on their iPads. I know she uses Kahoot a lot as well. (Kahoot is a competitve question-and-answer game that the students play together.) I really like Kahoot too. It lets students do the boring work of reviewing the material in a fun and competitive way. Plus, all students seem to love it. Classroom engagement goes way up when students play a Kahoot. Mrs. Coleman’s personal device is an Apple Macbook Air. She uses it for grading, creating assignments, and all sorts of things.

Technological Impediments to Teaching

The most annoying thing about technology in a classroom is when technology fails. Luckily, Mrs. Coleman’s technology has never failed while I was observing. As far as I know, she hasn’t had any major problems with anything. Technology only really gets tricky when Wi-Fi is down. I know that Smartphones can be a bit distracting to teachers. This isn’t specifically about Mrs. Coleman, but teachers generally get distracted by text messages from their family, email updates, communication from colleagues, and etc. It annoys students when teachers are constantly checking their phones. It comes off as hypocritical because the students aren’t allowed to use their phones.

Digital Story

Digital Story Assessment Rubric

WebPost 3: Field Observations and More Technology in the Classroom

Background

I recently went to my second field placement at Beachwood High School and learned about their technology use and technology specialists. Beachwood High School is a fairly diverse co-ed school with 38% of students being minorities. I’m observing Mrs. Matthews’ ninth grade regular and honors English classes as well as her African American Literature class.

The People in Charge of Technology

Computer Technician: Mr. Pinoniemi

Director of Operations and Technology: Dr. Veon

Librarians/Media Assistants: Ms. Dudley and Ms. Maxwell

Network Supervisor: Mr. Saldunas

Technology Teacher/Student Activities: Mr. Alexander

Technology Teachers: Mr. Chalice and Mr. Croftcheck

Types of Technology

At BHS, all students receive a school Chromebook to use. They take notes, do projects, collaborate for groupwork, check their grades, view PowerPoints, etc. on their Chromebooks. Mrs. Matthews had her students use their Chromebooks very often, especially for note-taking and reviewing. The students do not pay for the Chromebooks; they only pay if they damage them or need to replace them outside the warranty. If the Chromebook needs to be fixed or replaced, the maximum charge is $300. The Chromebooks must be returned by the end of the school year. They are owned by the district at all times.

BHS has multiple computer labs. Their computer science department typically uses the labs for class. The labs are open to all classes, so all teachers can use them. Students generally aren’t supposed to be in the labs because they have Chromebooks, but they can get permission to use them.

Beachwood also has projectors and document viewers. It is similar to JCU, except Beachwood’s classroom technology connects to the teacher’s laptop rather than a separate station.

Firewall

The school uses a Technology Protection Measure. In other words, they block various websites and pictures that may be inappropriate to students. The school uses an Internet Content Filter. In addition, the school has access to all of the students’ files and data at all times. The Chromebooks have no privacy, so the students should expect no online privacy. The Chromebooks’ security system is just Chrome OS.

Who did I talk to?

I talked mainly with my observation teacher on her lunch break and planning period. I didn’t want to bother the librarians/media assistants because they were busy helping students. The librarians and technology teachers would likely have the best information. They deal most often with the school’s system and teach students how to use it. The librarians seem like great resources for students to learn how to do research as well. The technology teachers teach students about computer science rather than research, but they would also know a lot about technology at the school. Unfortunately, I did not get to talk to them.

Script and Storyboard

WebPost 2: Field Observations and Technology in the Classroom

Background Information

I’m doing my field placement at Hathaway Brown Middle School with Mrs. C. I have been observing a seventh grade ELA classroom for the past couple weeks. Hathaway Brown is an all girls school. Their motto is “Non Scholae Sed Vitae Discimus – We Learn Not for School, But for Life” (Hathaway Brown). The school seeks to empower young women “to rise boldly to the challenges of our times” (Hathaway Brown).

Use of Technology in the Classroom

The students at Hathaway Brown all use iPads. They use them as both learning and organizational tools. Students complete webquests, find information, take notes, and do activities on their iPads. Teachers post students’ assignments, schedules, and other critical organizational material online so that students can view them on their iPads.

Some students use their iPads more than others. For example, a girl who I’ll call “Rachel” uses her iPad for everything. She seems quite disorganized and rather forgetful, so the iPad is a great tool for her. She doesn’t have to keep track of notebooks and planners. Rachel only has to know where her iPad is in order to do her work.

Likewise, some teachers utilize the iPad’s functions more than others. Whenever a student asks her about the syllabus, Mrs. C tells them but always reminds them that everything they are doing is online. Phones are not allowed in class, so she lets students look up information on their iPads instead. Sometimes she will even ask her students to look something up for her. Mrs. C also uses the SmartBoard in her class regularly for notes, assignments, and activities. I observed one activity where she taught her class about possessive nouns and apostrophes through a chart on the SmartBoard. The class followed the chart from top to bottom to see how they should formulate the possessive. Afterwards, she had the class recreate the chart on the floor. The students would move from stop to stop as if they were the word that needed to be possessive. It was a clever activity, and I think the students learned a lot from it.

At one point, Mrs. C asked another teacher if he posted his assignments online for Rachel to follow. He said that he did not because he did not know how. He said that his students know more about the iPads than he does. I wish he would make the extra effort to learn about the technology. I think that the teacher is really missing out on how much the iPad can do for students. I imagine Rachel is having a hard time staying organized in his class because she relies on her iPad so much.

Outside of class, most of Mrs. C’s students said that they watch YouTube a lot. Some are on social media (particularly Snapchat), but some aren’t allowed to use social media at all. Their parents don’t want them to use it yet. They’re only seventh graders, so it may be a little early for that. Although, it seems that kids are using social media younger and younger nowadays.

Pedagogical Implications for Integrating Digital Storytelling Into a Classroom

The students of Mrs. C’s classroom can utilize their iPads to create digital stories. These digital stories can be both relevant to the lesson and to the students. It is a way for students to creatively express themselves and learn about each other. To help students get started on writing, Lambert suggests that teachers give students a surprise prompt, a notecard, and about six minutes to write a story (2012, p. 89). To incorporate technology into this writing exercise, each student could substitute her iPad for the notecard. This exercise is designed to get students’ initial ideas down on paper, so they can later expand and elaborate on their ideas. It helps students overcome what Lambert calls “blank page syndrome” (2012, p. 88). Instead of lamenting about having to fill an entire page with new, well-developed ideas, students can jot down their messy ideas to be shaped into a coherent story later. Another benefit of using an iPad instead of paper is that students can easily add digital pictures to their developing stories. Perhaps instead of a writing exercise, students could make a picture collage that represents the events of their stories. Pictures often help trigger students’ memories, which in turn helps them write more accurate and vibrant stories (Lambert, 2012, p. 91). Students can later write about the pictures and turn the writing into a full-length story. This is just one example of how teachers can successfully incorporate digital storytelling into a lesson.

Works Cited

Hathaway Brown. (n.d.). “About Us.” Retrieved from https://www.hb.edu/page.cfm?p=10

Lambert, J. (2012) Chapter 7: Approaches to the Scripting Process and Chapter 8: Storyboarding, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. (4th Edition). Routledge : New York, NY. pp. 88-101.

Digital Storytelling Through Comics – BlogPost Three

A great way of teaching students involves multimodal methods. Here is an example of a comicstip for students: