Were I to define “distributed cognition” as I understand it from class discussion and readings, it is a concept that emphasizes capturing the full scope of knowledge resources and knowledge distribution tools that are contained in a learning environment with the objective of developing lessons that optimize the the resources in a cooperative and intentional manner (pedagogy) to enhance learning opportunities for all students. Stated another way, distributed cognition considers learning and knowledge “organism-ly” (where the organism is the whole learning environment) rather than individually (as student and teacher). At its core, distributed cognition pushes against the common picture of the teacher as the primary/exclusive source of knowledge and capability in the classroom – instead encapsulating all of the learning tools that are in the environment, including those that reach outside of the immediate environment.
The robustness of this conceptual approach to the learning environment and learning system results from the many tributaries that feed it – including considerations of technology (what is available, what does it do, what is it capable of doing), the role of technology (how will it fit in with pedagogy and content, what tasks will it assume, how will the it add to the environment or detract from it, how will it affect the student or teacher), the nature and characteristics of the learner (what do they already know, what experiences do they have), the content being presented, the pedagogical techniques that are available, etc.
Peter McIntosh, a high school, remedial algebra teacher in an urban California district, exemplifies one embodiment of distributed cognition as depicted in the Edutopia.org video entitled “Blended Learning Energizes High School Math Students” McIntosh makes extensive use of an online education platform (Khan Academy) to deliver content to his students and, in significant part, to define the nature of teacher-student and student-student engagement in the classroom.
Key to the success of the program is the technology available to students – namely, computers with which to connect to the Khan Academy classroom, the Khan platform itself, which is intensely scaffolded, offering videos and hints to help students succeed, the classroom white board on which McIntosh can show a model example problem for reference, paper and pencil that students use to work out problems in a way the computers don’t readily afford. The computer is essential to connecting students to the information and tools available on the Khan Academy platform. Interestingly, though the computer serves this function, it seems to simultaneously limit the connection between students, who all appear to be working independently.
Unseen to the student, but central to success, are the monitoring functions that the Khan platform includes. This affordance allows McIntosh to monitor all of his students in great detail and to identify areas and concepts where specific students are struggling and where groups are struggling. This affords McIntosh the ability to implement a very self-paced model of learning. The monitoring capability built into McIntosh’s chosen technology is one of the four key pedagogical functions performed by technology. (Martin 2012).
Another of the key pedagogical functions performed by technology involves offloading. One of the features of the Khan platform is that McIntosh is able to offload a significant portion of content delivery and focus on one-on-one and small group, tailored instruction. Even aspects of this one-on-one support are offloaded to Khan academy as McIntosh expects students to use the videos and hints that Khan provides (and then, their fellow students) before accessing the teacher. This ability to offload (and essentially distribute) aspects of the teacher’s cognitive load to an external resource enables McIntosh to focus and adapt his pedagogical practices towards a more individualized classroom structure. I note that the students are not grouped together in McIntosh’s classroom.
In some respects, the Khan platform generates a significant effect with technology. (Salomon and Perkins 2005). The platform expands on McIntosh’s ability to self-pace lessons for his students and his ability to differentiate instruction by directing his attention to those students who need help after processing the videos and hints. There is also a significant effect of technology. Students are engaging the Khan platform to such an extent that its removal would likely upend student learning. McIntosh observed near the beginning of the video that many of the students had bad habits. It is very likely that the habits students are now developing are tightly integrated with the Khan platform and the method of content delivery it provides.
McIntosh weaves technology and pedagogy together in a way that demonstrates results in improved student learning. It is apparent that he has considered the technology available, its role in the classroom and pedagogical structure, his students abilities and capabilities and the content all in creating an environment in which students are working effectively toward math mastery.
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.
Person. (2012, October 10). Blended Learning Energizes High School Math Students (Tech2Learn Series). Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://www.edutopia.org/video/blended-learning-energizes-high-school-math-students-tech2learn-series
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.
Deron's blog 