A tool's effectiveness results from the whole configuration of events, activities, and contexts in which it is used¶

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 6 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Salomon's principle, cited by the paper, holds that no tool is good or bad in itself; effectiveness results from the whole configuration of events, activities, contexts, and interpersonal processes in which it is used, and introducing a tool alone changes little. → Gilbert 1999 q2 i? Research on tools such as Logo confirms widely different effects when used in varying contexts. → Gilbert 1999 (2)

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 · r3

The paper quotes Salomon (1993c) on pedagogic computer tools in its areas-for-additional-research section, including the claim that if nothing significant changes in the classroom save the introduction of a tool, few important changes can be expected. This is a cited theoretical assertion, not a new empirical test.

"No tool is good or bad in and of itself; its effectiveness results from and contributes to the whole configuration of events, activities, contexts, interpersonal processes taking place in the context of which is used."

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 · r2

The paper cites prior Logo research (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Pea, Kurland, & Hawkins, 1987) as confirming context-dependent effects, and suggests activity-theory perspectives may help identify the contextual factors behind the widely varying reported results. The underlying studies are not described here.

"Research confirms that tools like Logo can have widely different effects when used in varying contexts."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Media comparison studies produce uninterpretable "no significant difference" findings. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• An innovation foreign to the rest of its system tends to be rejected; lasting change needs a coordinated bundle of innovations. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Salomon distinguishes effects with the computer (system performance) from effects of the computer (cognitive residue on the solo performer) — related
• Salomon and Perkins distinguish learning with a tool from learning of a tool, with tools triggering cognitive transformations — related
• Mead holds that the process of acquiring changes the thing acquired, making change of subject matter the rule — related
• Computer-led exploration set the decision boundary for what counted as an interaction, shaping which events became detectable and how interpretation proceeded — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Predictive performance of sensor configurations does not change monotonically with the number of sensing streams; preferred configuration depends on target metric and sensing cost — related
• A medium feature's affordance does not guarantee its actual cognitive effects: LOGO instruction designed to enhance conditional reasoning may not do so — related