Salomon distinguishes effects with the computer (system performance) from effects of the computer (cognitive residue on the solo performer)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1999 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 5 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the distributed cognition literature, Salomon distinguishes effects with the computer, the efficacy of the person-plus-computer system, from effects of the computer, the cognitive residue left on the person operating alone. → Gilbert 1999

Evidence¶

Gilbert 1999¶

Gilbert, L. S. (1999). Where Is My Brain? Distributed Cognition, Activity Theory, and Cognitive Tools. Proceedings of the AECT National Convention. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436153

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

The paper's literature synthesis reports Salomon's critical distinction within distributed cognition discussions of cognitive tools, quoting that effects of the computer are the "cognitive residue" left upon the person. No empirical data are reported here; this is a conceptual distinction attributed to Salomon (1990).

"Effects with the computer refer to the efficacy of the total system (the person-plus-computer). In contrast, effects of the computer refer to the "cognitive residue" left upon the person, changes evident when operating as a solo performer."

Gilbert 1999 (2)¶

Gilbert, L. S. (1999). Where Is My Brain? Distributed Cognition, Activity Theory, and Cognitive Tools. Proceedings of the AECT National Convention. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436153

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The paper reports Pea's critique of Salomon's analytic/systemic evaluation criteria, attributing to Pea the argument that the approach is "overly simplistic" and neglects evolving user-tool relationships. This is the paper's account of a published debate, not new data.

"Pea (1993) acknowledges the distinction between analytic and systemic criteria, but takes issue with the assumption that a low proportion of user contribution is cause for alarm. He persuasively argues Salomon's approach is overly simplistic, and fails to consider the evolving relationships between the users and tools."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Salomon and Perkins distinguish learning with a tool from learning of a tool, with tools triggering cognitive transformations — related
• A tool's effectiveness results from the whole configuration of events, activities, and contexts in which it is used — related