Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

How does information technology shape thinking?

Sarit Barzilai , Anat Zohar 1
School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Received 9 May 2006; accepted 15 August 2006 Available online 26 September 2006

Abstract This study revisits a classic yet still intriguing question regarding information technology (IT): what difference does IT really make, in terms of peoples thinking? In order to explore this question, the effects of IT in authentic research settings were studied through retrospective interviews with 24 academic researchers. Analysis of the researchers descriptions of their learning and thinking processes shows that the effects of IT on higher order thinking strategies can be classied, following Perkins [Perkins, D. N. (1985). The ngertip effect: How information processing technology changes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 1117], into rst order effects and second order effects. First order effects of IT amplify or improve existing thinking strategies, without changing their nature, while second order effects of IT cause signicant changes in the researchers thinking strategies. The results demonstrate that both types of effects take place in authentic research settings, often existing side by side. This article explores several examples of the ways in which IT affects higher order thinking strategies (such as forming research questions, constructing models and evaluating information), examines the types of effects created by IT, the conditions required for these effects to take place, and the role of distributed cognition. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Higher order thinking strategies; Cognitive effects of information technology; Distributed cognition

1. Introduction This study revisits a classic yet still intriguing question regarding information technology (IT): what difference does IT really make, in terms of peoples thinking? Can IT cause signicant modications in the ways in which people act and think, or does it merely amplify and/or facilitate human activity without really changing it? This question has received many formulations (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991). In the present article we would like to revisit a formulation suggested by David Perkins 20 years ago. Perkins (1985) coined the term Fingertip Effect to describe the opportunities technology lays at our ngertips. Perkins created a distinction between rst order ngertip effects of technology and second order ngertip effects. First order ngertip effects are the straightforward and immediate effects of technology. These are effects that change the way people do things without actually changing very much the basic aspirations, endeavors, or thinking

Corresponding author at: The Snunit Center for the Advancement of Web-Based Learning, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmund Safra Givat Ram Campus, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Tel.: +972 2 6586827; fax: +972 2 6586495. E-mail addresses: sarit@mail.snunit.k12.il (S. Barzilai), msazohar@mscc.huji.ac.il (A. Zohar). 1 School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Tel.: +972 2 5881368. 1871-1871/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.08.001

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

131

habits of a population (ibid. p. 11). The term second order ngertip effects refer to the differences that technology really makes. These are effects that change our goals and the ways in which we think and act. Perkins uses the example of print technology in order to explain the difference between the rst and second order effects of technology. Print technology can make baking easier by supplying us with recipes (i.e., rst order effects), but it can also fuel and actually shape our thinking by offering us surrogate memories and by fostering combinatorial work and play with the data and ideas supplied by print (i.e., second order effects, ibid. p. 11). So does IT indeed have second order effects on thinking? Answering this question is not as simple as it may sound. First, how can we examine the effects of IT on thinking? Second, once we nd out what these effects are, how will we know if these are rst or second order effects? This study attempts to explore the effects of IT on thinking through the help of a group of academic researchers whom we consider experts in terms of their thinking and research abilities. We turned to researchers who have used IT regularly for a relatively long period of time and have personally experienced the introduction of computerized information tools and the changes IT has brought about. These researchers were systematically questioned about the effects of IT on their thinking processes. Our analysis of the researchers descriptions of their thinking processes focuses on the higher order thinking strategies that form the inquiry process, such as, forming research questions, creating knowledge through innovative connections, building models, and evaluating information. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Higher order thinking strategies The term higher order thinking strategies (or skills) has multiple denitions. In fact, the different denitions of thinking and the number of available options can be confusing (Marzano et al., 1988). Referring to this same confusion, Resnick (1987) wrote that thinking skills resist precise forms of denition; yet, higher order thinking skills can be recognized when they occur. Some of the characteristics of higher order thinking, according to Resnick, are the following: higher order thinking is non-algorithmic, it tends to be complex, it often yields multiple solutions, and it involves the application of multiple criteria, uncertainty and self-regulation. Additional examples of cognitive activities that are classied as higher order include constructing arguments, asking research questions, making comparisons, solving non-algorithmic complex problems, dealing with controversies, and identifying hidden assumptions. Most of the classical scientic inquiry strategies, such as formulating hypotheses, planning experiments or drawing conclusions, are also classied as higher order thinking strategies (Zohar, 2004). 2.2. The effects of IT on higher order thinking The effects of IT on learning and thinking have been the subject of many speculations (for example: Jonassen, 1996; Lajoie, 1993, 2000; March, 1987; Owston, 1997; Pea, 1985, 1987; Perkins, 1985, 1993; Resnick, 1991; Salomon, 1993a,b, 2000a,b; Salomon et al., 1991) and several empirical studies (for example: Brem, Russell, & Weems, 2001; Hill & Hannan, 1997; Hoffman, Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2003; Land & Greene, 2000; Linn, Bell, & Davis, 2004; Liu & Bera, 2005; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994; Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000). These studies have been spurred by the attempt to evaluate the effects of IT in educational settings, and to dene the necessary conditions for realizing the potential of IT in enhancing learning environments. In order to fully grasp the signicance of the ndings of the studies in this eld it is important to situate them in the context of two major trends that can be identied in the past decades regarding the nature of knowledge construction: the cognitive view according to which students actively construct their ways of knowing, and the socio-cultural or situative view that emphasizes the socially and culturally situated nature of learning (Cobb, 2005). These notions have signicant implications regarding the question where is the mind?. Cognitive theorists tend to analyze thought in terms of processes located in the individual, while socio-cultural theorists take the individual-in social-action as their unit of analysis, viewing the mind as distributed between the individual and other agents. These cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives often appear to be in direct conict, but there are also theorists who view both approaches as valuable, assuming that both a process of active individual construction and a process of enculturation into the practices of society take place side by side (Cobb, 2005; Greeno, 1997; Salomon, 2000a). It is important to keep in mind that

132

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

some of the studies that will be described below adhere to one of the two perspectives (although not necessarily stating this in an explicit way), while others assume certain degrees of synthesis between them. This latter assumption of a possible synthesis between the two perspectives is also adopted by the authors of the present study. One of the basic denitions of the effects of IT is based on the distinction between quantitative and qualitative effects of IT (Pea, 1985; Perkins, 1985). Quantitative effects are those effects that accelerate or amplify human activity without changing it. Learning and thinking processes may become faster, wider in scope, or more efcient while still remaining essentially the same. Quantitative effects may offer a valuable contribution to many processes such as data collection or computation. However, both Perkins and Pea think that quantitative effects do not fully realize the potential of IT to bring about qualitative changes in human activity. IT, it is claimed, can also facilitate qualitative changes in peoples thinking. For example, off-loading a computational process to the computer, or using the computer to overcome memory limitations may empower higher order thinking processes. Students who use spreadsheets or other mathematical modeling tools no longer need to busy themselves with computations, and can focus on raising and examining new hypothetical solutions (Jonassen, 1996; Pea, 1985). But in reality the border between quantity and quality is somewhat fuzzy. For example, quantitative changes can sometimes be so great that they spur qualitative changes. Perkins (1985) preferred to label the effects of IT as rst order and second order effects. As mentioned earlier, rst order effects are the straightforward and immediate effects of technology that do not essentially change human behavior, while second order ngertip effects refer to the effects of technology that make real or fundamental changes in human behavior. The effects of IT can also be described in reference to the timeline of computer use. Salomon et al. (1991) note the difference between effects with computers and effects of computers. Effects with computers are those effects that are created while working with the computer. These effects are characterized by an intellectual partnership with the computer that enables the student to accomplish tasks she might not have been able to accomplish on her own. Effects with may be both quantitative and qualitative but they are not necessarily long-lasting. Effects of technology, on the contrary, are the transferable cognitive residue that remains in the learners brain after technology use is over. This cognitive residue may take the form of improved skills and strategies. Effects of technology are also dened as effects transferable to other learning environments or settings. In the ensuing discussion of the cognitive effects of computers, the term cognitive tools has been coined to describe computer-based tools that can amplify, enhance, extend or reorganize human cognition (Liu & Bera, 2005; Pea, 1985; Salomon et al., 1991). Lajoie (1993) identied four types of cognitive tools: (a) tools that support cognitive and metacognitive processes; (b) tools that share the cognitive load by providing support for lower level cognitive skills so that resources are left over for higher order thinking skills; (c) tools that allow learners to engage in cognitive activities that would be out of their reach otherwise; and (d) tools that allow learners to generate and tests hypotheses in the context of problem solving. 2.3. When does IT affect higher order thinking? Cognitive effects of IT are not automatic and cannot be taken for granted. The mere use of computer-based tools does not promise that these tools will indeed function as cognitive tools (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Perkins, 1985; Salomon et al., 1991; Wegerif, 2003). Various researchers have suggested several conditions under which IT may affect higher order thinking: OpportunityThe technological tools should offer an opportunity for meaningful thinking activities (Jonassen, 1996; Perkins, 1985). MotivationLearners need to be sufciently motivated to take up the opportunities offered by IT (Perkins, 1985). Mindful engagementHigher levels of cognitive performance through partnership with technology can be attained when learners engage with technology in volitional, nonautomatic, effortful, and mindful ways (Salomon et al., 1991). Realistic and meaningful contextsIT based tasks or problems should ideally be situated in realistic contexts with results that are personally meaningful for the learners (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Explicit goalsTransferable thinking strategies are more likely to occur when thinking strategies and learning goals are made explicit, and learners have a chance to articulate and explain their strategies to others (Wegerif, 2003).

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

133

2.4. Distributed cognition The theoretical discussion regarding the cognitive effects of technology has led both cognitive and socio-cultural theorists to rethinking the concept of cognition. As Pea (1993) points out: minds rarely work alone. People have always worked and thought together with other people and with the help of various artifacts. The proponents of distributed cognition argue that cognition does not reside in the individual mind but is distributed across minds, persons, and the symbolic and physical environments, both natural and articial (Pea, ibid. p. 47). Perkins calls the distributed system of learner and tools the person-plus system (Perkins, 1993). The concept of distributed cognition is a product of the realization that cognition and knowledge are socially constructed through collaboration and dialogue and through the use of artifacts, or cognitive tools, that embody the cultures intellectual history (Cole & Engstrom, 1993; Resnick, 1991). According to this notion of cognition, thought and intelligence are activities rather than static states. Cognition is therefore by nature dynamic and constantly evolving as a result of the interaction among people and between people and tools (Brown et al., 1993; Pea, 1993; Salomon, 1993b). Various proponents of the distributed cognition approach offer different answers to the question what is distributed? The idea that all cognitions can be distributed is an implicit assumption of the distributed cognition approach (Salomon, 1993b). But this assumption is critiqued by both Perkins and Salomon. Perkins (1993) suggests that higher order knowledge, which he denes as including discipline appropriate problem-solving strategies and patterns of justication, explanation, and inquiry characteristic of the discipline, should be in the person (or distributed among the minds of participating persons) rather than physically downloaded (ibid. p. 104). Salomon (1993b) adds that individual mental representations also play an important role in cognition and cannot be distributed. Salomon makes, therefore, the distinction between individual and distributed cognitions, and proposes that they interact with each other in a reciprocal process. Salomons approach suggests a possible model for a synthesis between the cognitive and sociocognitive aspects of the effects of technology on people and society. 3. Rationale and purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects of IT on higher order thinking strategies in authentic research settings. Our main research question was: how does expert computer use affect higher order thinking strategies? A secondary question was whether the effects of IT are inuenced by the discipline of the expert computer user. Unlike studies that focus on the effects computers may have on the learning processes of school students at various levels, this study examines the inuence of IT on academic researchers whom we consider experts who are already experienced thinkers. The aim of examining experts is to learn how computers affect the thinking processes of people who are skilled and effective researchers. The ways in which these researchers think with computers may demonstrate desired outcomes of learning with computers, and thus contribute to the design of a model of teaching and learning for schools in computerized environments (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). 4. Method 4.1. Participants We interviewed 24 academic researchers: 12 were from the eld of Life Sciences and 12 from Judaic Studies. This group included 17 men and 7 women. The low percentage of women reects the low representation of women among high-ranking researchers in the institutes in which we operated. Researchers were chosen according to four criteria: academic experience, level of computer use, academic discipline, and willingness to participate in the study. 4.1.1. Academic experience Since we were looking for changes in thinking processes that occurred as a result of the introduction of computers, we turned to veteran researchers that began conducting research in the days when computer use was scarce or nonexistent in their discipline. We were hoping that this unique generation of researchers who experienced the transition from research without computers to research that involves intensive use of computers will be able to describe the changes in thinking processes that took place following the introduction of computers in a way that the next generation

134

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

of researchers who grew up with computers would not be able to do. The average academic experience of the researchers we interviewed was 27.5 years (counting from their rst academic research, which was usually their Ph.D. study). The majority of the researchers (18 of 24) were associate or full professors and the remaining researchers were senior university lecturers. 4.1.2. Level of computer use All of the participants were researchers who use computers regularly for their research. The researchers we interviewed started using computers as soon they appeared in the market (Early Adopters), or in the early stages of their diffusion (Early Majority1 ). Many of the researchers we interviewed were the rst to use computers in their disciplines. Professor Reuven2 is a typical example: Today I am 60 years old . . . I nished my studies before the computers came along, and started doing research before the computers. I saw the entire transition [to computer use]. I was among the rst people in the faculty of humanities to use computers. (Professor Reuven, Judaic Studies) 4.1.3. Academic disciplines Since the usage of computer varies among academic disciplines (Ellis, Cox, & Hall, 1993; Finholt & Brooks, 1997; Porter, 1998), we chose to look at two different disciplines from two different facultiesthe natural sciences and the humanities. Our motivation in choosing two disciplines instead of just one was to query whether or not our results are discipline specic. The two disciplines we chose are ones in which the development of computerized tools for research has made great strides. In the natural sciences we chose to look at biology, a eld that has seen the development of many computerized tools and databases, most famously genome databases. In the humanities we chose to closely examine Judaic Studies, a eld that is dramatically affected by the gradual computerization of the vast corpus of religious Jewish texts. 4.1.4. Willingness to participate in the study We began by interviewing researchers whom we were personally familiar with and found additional researchers with the help of the researchers we had interviewed, using the snow ball technique (Miles & Huberman, 1994). About 70% of the researchers we contacted agreed to be interviewed. 4.2. Instrumentation Our main research tool was a semi-structured interview. The interview included a set of questions that was planned in advance, but also allowed room for the participants to develop their answers in various ways and to raise topics of their own interest. Consequently, not all of the issues raised by the interviews were foreseen in advance (see sample interview questions in Appendix A). An additional tool was a computer application use survey that was lled-in by the participants and that mapped the various computer applications they use routinely, as well as assessed the perceived usefulness of these applications to their research. This tool enabled us to create a prole of computer application use for each of the researchers we interviewed. 4.3. Data collection and analysis The interviews took place at the researchers ofces or homes, and lasted approximately 6090 min. The interviews were taped and fully transcribed. We read all of the interviews several times and developed a set of categories that described recurrent ideas that were expressed throughout the interviews. Our categorization methodology followed the
1 The concepts Early Adopters and Early Majority are innovation adopter categories coined by Rogers in his Innovation Diffusion theory to describe the stages in which innovations are adopted. Early Adopters are among the rst to adopt an innovation and serve as role models for many other members of the social system. The Early Majority take longer to adopt an innovation but still adopt the innovation just before the average member of the social system (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). 2 Pseudonyms for the researchers we interviewed are used throughout this article, maintaining their gender.

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

135

Grounded Theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The resulting categories were inter-validated by two judges (the rst author and a research student that was not involved in the data collection process), who independently categorized the data. Only categories that obtained an agreement rate of at least 80% were used. Categories that did not reach a high enough agreement rate were dropped or modied and re-examined. The validated categories were then reapplied to the interviews and used to classify the interview data (see sample categories in Appendix A). The quantitative data regarding the level of the researchers computer use was collated and compared to the interview data in order to ensure that the research results were not dependent on the level of computer use of the participants. 4.4. Limitations This study is an exploratory study that uses a qualitative research methodology to help reveal processes that may have been otherwise difcult to discern. However, this methodology harbors several limitations: The relatively small sample size does not enable us to generalize our results. Our results are obviously affected by the specic characteristics of the researchers we interviewed, for example, their age, academic experiences, cultural background, etc. An additional limitation is the retrospective nature of the interview. We asked the researchers to reect on changes that occurred over a long period of time. During this period other factors had most likely inuenced the researchers thinking processes, for example, their growing knowledge and experience. In our questions and analysis we tried to isolate IT related effects, but we cannot rule out the possibility of other, interfering inuences. 5. Results Throughout the interview we asked the researchers repeatedly whether, and if so how, computers affect their thinking. The resulting answers and descriptions reveal a rich and complex picture of the effects of computers on thinking strategies. The key to our analysis was the distinction, following Perkins (1985), between rst and second order effects of IT. For the purposes of our analysis we used the following working denitions: First order effects of IT on thinking were dened as amplication of existing thinking strategies, without changing their nature. Second order effects of IT on thinking were dened as the creation of new thinking strategies, signicant changes to existing thinking strategies, or engagement in out of reach cognitive activities. None of the researchers we interviewed believed that IT does not have an effect on their thinking. Five of the researchers described only rst order effects. Sixteen researchers described both rst order and second order effects on their thinking, and three researchers described second order effects only. Therefore, a majority of the researchers we interviewed described second order effects on their thinking (19 out of 24, 79.2%). There was no signicant difference between researchers in the Life Sciences and in Judaic Studies. See Table 1. The researchers described a wide range effects on higher order thinking strategies such as organizing, comparing, evaluating, and analyzing information, identifying patterns, creating new connections, and developing and testing new hypotheses and models. The wide range of effects described by the researchers shows that the impact of computers can encompass many cognitive processes. In the following sections we shall focus on four higher order thinking strategies that were described
Table 1 The effect of IT on higher order thinking strategies Effect on higher order thinking strategies IT has no effect IT has only rst order effects IT has both rst and second order effects IT has only second order effects Total no. of researchers Life Sciences researchers 0 2 9 1 12 Judaic Studies researchers 0 3 7 2 12 All researchers 0 5 16 3 24

136

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

by the researchers: forming research questions, creating new connections, building models, and evaluating information. We will use these thinking strategies to demonstrate the ways in which IT affects thinking. 5.1. The impact of IT on forming research questions Questions are the engine of scientic research. Questions dene research goals and methods, and any change in the way questions are formed is bound to affect research fundamentally. We therefore asked our interviewees explicitly whether IT had affected the type of questions they ask. Following our interviewees observations we dened the difference between rst order and second order effects of IT on forming research questions in the following way: First order effects on forming research questionsResearchers can now investigate questions which were previously difcult or even impossible to answer, but the questions themselves are not new and have not changed as a result of the introduction of IT. Second order effects on forming research questionsResearchers form new questions, or change the types of questions they ask. The analysis of the researchers replies shows that only six researchers (25%) described the effects of IT on forming research questions as non-existent. Eleven researchers described both rst order and second order effects, and six researchers described second order effects. Therefore, a total of 17 researchers out of 24 (70%) described second order effects of IT on their research questions. Judaic Studies researchers tended to describe fewer effects than Life Science researchers. These results are summarized in Table 2. Let us rst look at an example of rst order effects on forming research questions. As explained earlier, IT has enabled many researchers to investigate questions that they always wanted to ask, but could not attempt to answer due to time limitations or limited processing abilities. Today computers can facilitate lower order processes such as assembling data and processing, providing the researchers the time and resources to investigate the questions that have always intrigued them: I think that my ability to answer the questions that Ive always asked, or always wanted to ask, has improved immensely. But the questions are the same questions. . . . These are not new questions but the same questions we once used to say about: Oh, I wish I had a tool that would enable me to answer this basic question without taking up a year of my time. (Professor Michael, Judaic Studies) Nevertheless, many researchers described cases in which IT changed their research agenda by inspiring new questions or by changing the type of questions they ask. These cases were classied as second order effects on forming research questions. As mentioned earlier, the majority of the researchers who mentioned rst order effects on forming research questions described second order effects as well. They were joined by six additional researchers who described only second order effects on the questions they ask, resulting in a total of 17 researchers (70%) who described second order effects on forming research questions. A typical example of a second order inuence on forming research questions is when IT leads to the creation of questions that simply did not exist before. For instance, the ability to assemble and access large databases can enable scientists to visualize processes they could not visualize before:
Table 2 The effect of IT on forming research questions Effect on forming research questions IT has no effect IT has only rst order effects IT has both rst and second order effects IT has only second order effects Total no. of researchers Life Sciences researchers 2 0 6 4 12 Judaic Studies researchers 4 1 5 2 12 All researchers 6 1 11 6 24

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

137

When you examine the [human] body you get an enormous amount of information. In the past, it was almost impossible to make sense of that information and to draw conclusions about it. Thats why imaging of cells, of the brain, or of the bodyhas totally changed the questions you can ask. . . . I want to know how the brain works, and the questions I can now ask about the brain are different than before. (Professor Aaron, Life Sciences) These types of changes occur in Judaic Studies as well. For example, computers enable Judaic scholars to map the occurrences of topics that were never investigated before, throughout the vast Talmudic literature. This ability encourages exploration of issues and concepts that were never researched in the past, for instance, gender issues: You can now ask questions that you could not even think of before. For example, I have a graduate student who is doing a very good research with the help of computers [on a gender related issue]. She couldnt have even begun this research without reading all the places in the Talmud where this issue appears. So [without the computer] the issue she is researching would never have been investigated. (Professor Sam, Judaic Studies) Another class of second order effects on questioning appears in cases in which IT changes the type of questions asked. The researchers we interviewed described two main parallel changes in the type of questions they ask: an increase in the scope of the questions, and an increase in the specicity of the questions. Sixteen (66.6%) researchers, nine from Life Sciences and seven from Judaic Studies, reported that IT helps them ask wider or more general questions. The ability to formulate large scale questions stems directly from improved access options and better information processing capabilities. [You can ask] wider questions. . . . It used to be almost impossible to investigate certain literary issues such as space or time, since you couldnt even locate [the references to] them in all the existing texts. Now you can assemble the textual data in a click and immediately nd out all the occurrences of the expressions or phrases you are looking for. (Professor Jake, Judaic Studies) Judaic Studies researchers described how IT helps them accomplish ambitious projects such as characterizing the differences between various cultures or historical periods or analyzing the differences between manuscript versions. These activities could not be carried out without the analysis and comparison of thousands of texts. In the Life Sciences IT also helps researchers ask bigger questions. This is a case in which quantity creates quality. . . . If I want to nd broad patterns in nature I need to be able to collect the data and to examine it. . . . The technology that helps collect the data, store it, and compare simultaneously tens of thousands of data items, enables asking questions on a scale that people never dared to ask before because they were not able to see the data. . . . The questions have become much bigger. (Professor Gideon, Life Sciences) The ability to access and process large sets of data enables not only the creation of wider generalizations, but also far more detailed answers than before. As a result researchers can also ask more focused questions that relate to isolated phenomena or nuances of differences that were previously left unobserved. This increase in the specicity of the questions was described by eight researchers (33.3%), six from Life Sciences and two from Judaic Studies. Today you can store enough information in order to look for nuances of differences between cases. It used to be impossible to search for these little things. Today we can collect enough data about enough people in order to distinguish between many different types of a medical condition. (Professor David, Life Sciences) Whoever studies ancient texts constantly deals with their language and style. . . . In the past we did not have the possibility of circumscribing the corpus we wanted to study. Now we can ask questions only about the book of Leviticus, or only about the middle chapters of the book of Leviticus. . . . (Professor Yehudah, Judaic Studies) The increase in the scope of the questions and the increase in the specicity of questions are complementary processes. Both processes stem from the same technological advancesimproved data accessing and data processing tools. These tools allow researchers to exibly investigate large amounts of data, simultaneously seeing the big picture and zooming in on any particular point in it. Professor Debras example illustrates this phenomenon:

138

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

These tools enable me to ask holistic, global questions that used to be illegitimate. For example, what does Aspirin do? Up until ve years ago this was an illegitimate question. . . . Now I can study it because I have a picture of all the proteins in the liver. There are 50,000 dots in the picture, each dot represents a protein, and I can click on each dot and get all the information about that protein. When I compare a regular liver to a liver that received Aspirin, I suddenly see a new dot! . . . The 50,000 dots are the norm, the background. And suddenly I have 50,001! So I know exactly where to nd that one dot! Otherwise I wouldnt even have known where to look. (Professor Debra, Life Sciences) The same information tools that enable Professor Debra to see all the proteins of the liver in one glance enable her also to see a change in just one of those proteins. This ability helps her answer questions about a specic liver protein and at the same time to understand the behavior of the liver as a whole. The ability to ask wider questions and the ability to ask more specic questions are, therefore, complementary second order effects of technology. Researchers have always strived to arrive at broad understandings that are based on nuanced observations of the world around them. IT now gives them the tools to achieve these goals in ways that were previously unimaginable, thereby creating a qualitative difference in the scope and the depth of the questions they can ask. 5.2. The impact of IT on creating new connections The ability to create new connections between previously unconnected pieces of data is a key cognitive skill. The creation of knowledge is typically viewed as creation of a web or a network of connections between facts, ideas, and processes (Anderson, 1990; Linn et al., 2004; Salomon, 2000b). Perkins, Crismond, Simmons, and Unger (1995) take this idea further and dene understanding as the creation of rich extensible revisable networks of relationships. So how do computers affect the ability to create new connections? Though this was not one of our predened interview questions, the issue of connection making was raised repeatedly by the researchers we interviewed, in response to our general probes about the effects of IT. However, since we did not systematically question our interviewees about connection making, we have chosen not to present any quantitative results, but to focus, instead, on narrative analysis of the researchers responses. Some researchers saw the effect of IT on connection making as largely quantitative. Computers help them collect more information, and create more associations, but they do not really change the process of connection making. Professor Ruth illustrates this kind of rst order effect: My association span is larger, simply because it is easier to reach a wider scope [of information]. I dont have bundles of pages, and I can easily retrieve what I want from here or from there. I can cover a larger amount of information all at once. (Professor Ruth, Judaic Studies) However, the researchers we interviewed also described second order effects on connection making. Several researchers pointed out that IT helps them make connections that they would simply not have made otherwise, for example: The ability to use the Internet to nd research literature creates a new creative ability to connect things that were not connected previously. In the past, we could not use sophisticated searches and keywords in order to check a new hypothesis, or in order to integrate information and create new ideas. (Professor Rachel, Life Sciences) Professor Rachel described how the ability to type in two seeming unrelated keywords in a database enables her to swiftly look for wild connections that she would simply not have looked for before, for example, connections between various conditions that affect pre-cancerous cells. The low costs of examining new connections, result in increased daring and creativity. Other researchers added that the quantitative change of pace and scope of information gathering causes subtle yet signicant qualitative changes in the process of connection making: I feel I am much more connected to the world of knowledge. . . . [IT] makes the research processes shorter, but its not just technical. My ability to reach from one bibliographic reference to another may have existed

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

139

before, but today the pace is totally different. I feel that today when you touch one point you immediately color around it an entire background. I absorb that and it later comes up in my work. (Professor Sharon, Judaic Studies) Professor Sharons metaphor contrasts the process of making connections slowly, one at a time, with being able to suddenly see an entire network of connections. In her eyes, IT has made the process of connection making less linear and more holistic. Professor Gideon also describes how having the world in his mind creates a wider point-of-view, which, in his case, results in the ability to see analogies across distant phenomena: My mind is much larger, I have many more things in it. I have in my mind a much broader world than I had in the past. And another thing, that is very important for me, I can see analogical structures in very different phenomena . . . in totally different elds! Behavior, economics, statistics . . . (Professor Gideon, Life Sciences) However, many researchers also expressed concern that IT may have negative effects on their ability to make new connections. These researchers feared that their reliance on information that is stored in the computer might harm the process of mastering that information, and making it their own: There is a sort of feeling that you can say to yourself, its there [in the computer], I dont need to know it. This seems to be dangerous because there is a risk of becoming supercial, of touching on things in a cursory fashion, of not really digging in to the end to nd out what is happening there. . . . I mean you also need know how to learn things in a cursory way, but if this turns out to be the only way you study, then I think there is a real problem. . . . Because then how will you integrate different things? Where will the creativity come from, or the ability to ask new questions, if there is nothing deep inside you? (Professor Sharon, Judaic Studies) We do not believe that this concern about the negative effects of IT on connection making contradicts ITs potential positive effects on this thinking strategy. The effects of IT on thinking are complex. The use of computerized tools to enhance and expand the process of making connections can bring about very positive effects, but over-reliance on computerized tools may detract from the processes of systematic learning and internalization that are also important for connection making. 5.3. The impact of IT on building models Let us briey look at the effects of IT on two additional higher order thinking strategies: building models and evaluating information. First order effects on thinking are effects in which the computer enables the same thinking process to occur in faster and more efcient ways than in the past. Professor Sara sees ITs effect on building models as a rst order effect: Professor Sara: Instead of being exposed simultaneously to X ideas you get exposed to 5X ideas . . . so you can create models much faster, and these models can develop with time. I mean, what does a scientist do? You set up an experiment, you get results, and then you create a model [that explains these results]. . . . Then somebody else comes along, repeats your experiment, adds things to it, and changes the model. This way the model changes dialectically as you and your colleagues advance the research. The more efcient this process is, the faster the model develops and you can theoretically reach the truth faster. Interviewer: Has the type of models that you can create changed as a result of this? Professor Sara: No, no. I dont think so. (Professor Sara, Life Sciences) According to Professor Sara, the process of building models and improving them has become much faster thanks to IT, but in essence this process has remained unchanged. On the other hand, IT can also cause second order effects on modeling:

140

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

In creating models that explain results, there is no doubt that computers bring about an enormous, almost innite, advantage. A computer needs about half an hour to match results to the model, while for a person such a process may take a thousand years. . . . So you can take experimental results, create several models, and examine them. This changes the questions you can ask. . . . Once you can examine the data not with one model but with a whole row of models this can change the way you think. . . . This is a much higher level of reductionist matching of the data to a model. (Professor Aaron, Life Sciences) Professor Aaron describes how the ability to compute several models and examine them simultaneously brings about a second order change in the nature of the questions he can ask, and also in the creative process of model making. This technological advance also signicantly increases the correspondence between the model and the data it explains. While in Professor Saras case it was increased communication abilities that affected the process of building models, in Professor Aarons case it was the improvement of computation abilities that brought about the change. The example of building models illustrates how one technological improvement resulted in a rst order effect, and another, different, technological improvement resulted in a second order effect. Sometimes, however, the same technological advance can cause both rst order and second order effects. A case in point is the process of evaluating information. 5.4. The impact of IT on evaluating information In the information age the amount and variation of information available to the researchers have dramatically increased. While there may be several causes to this increase, there is no doubt that the technological ability to access information online is central to this change. So how does this increase impact the process of evaluating information? Professor Sharon, for example, thinks that while she needs to do more evaluating than in the past, her evaluation process has not fundamentally changed: I need to navigate the sea of information, which is on the one hand more accessible but on the other hand too extensive. But I think that the ability to recognize what is relevant for me in this sea of information is something that I had before, because without it you cannot complete a PhD. . . . Maybe today I apply [this ability] more, but I needed it then too. (Professor Sharon, Judaic Studies) Professor Debra, on the other hand, describes how the dramatic increase in the amount of available information requires of her to adopt new evaluation criteria: Today each abstract is connected to the articles that quote it later on. This is information that reaches into the future, and not only into the past, as it used to be. Once you could not check out an article that was published last year and nd out which journals quoted it. . . . I am very selective in choosing my information. If I see an article that was quoted only by two not very important journals, I do not even bother to read it. I may be missing things, but if I do not create thresholds I will never succeed . . . I need to be more critical and more selective otherwise Ill drown. (Professor Debra, Life Sciences) Professor Debra describes the evolution of a new evaluation criterionthat of citation data. Citation data reects the acceptance of the research in the scientic community and gives more weight in the evaluation process to peer assessment. In this example, the creation of computerized abstract and article databases has both brought about an information overload and, at the same, spurred the formation of a new evaluation criteria that enables researchers to cope with this overload. 5.5. How are cognitive effects of IT created? Through the interviews we had a chance to glimpse some of the processes through which cognitive effects of IT are created. While our information regarding this question is somewhat partial it does provide interesting ndings that can be pursued in future research. Going back to Lajoies (1993) classication of cognitive tools, we have found evidence for all four types of cognitive tools:

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

141

(a) Tools that support cognitive and metacognitive processes Many researchers clearly described an intellectual partnership (Salomon, 1993b) with the computer. For example, Professor Gideon describes how IT has become an integral part of his cognition, and how his thinking is highly dependent on the computerized tools he uses: [The computer] is my partner because it can extract data . . . and then sort it for me. For example, I ask the computer to sort certain objects according to their degree of similarity. I could tell it how to sort, but I can also tell the computer to sort the data until it nds the optimal sorting criteria, without telling it how to sort! The computer does the work for me and that usually opens up new questions. (Professor Gideon, Life Sciences) Professor Gideons example is a classic demonstration of the way in which users explore, design, probe, write or test hypotheses in ways that couple the tools intelligence with theirs in mindful engagement with the task (Salomon et al., 1991, p. 4). (b) Tools that share the cognitive load Some cognitive effects are formed when the computer reduces the load of lower order thinking processes, such as memory or computation. These processes are off-loaded to the computer and enable the researcher to devote more time to higher thinking processes (Salomon, 1993b). For example, Professor Jonathan describes how the fact that he no longer needs to memorize texts enables him to devote more time to developing both his analytic and his creative abilities: I need to put less effort into remembering . . . [So the energies get turned to] making imaginative connections and analysis. . . . I felt that I could focus more on imagination and analysis once I had to devote less energy to memorization [of texts]. (Professor Jonathan, Judaic Studies) (c) Tools that enable engagement in out of reach cognitive activities Researchers often described how computers enabled them to engage in activities they simply could not have undertaken otherwise. For example: We deciphered a new gene recently and named it. This is something that we could never have done without computers, even if we would have worked for many years. The ability to look at the entire human genome and ask questions about it did not exist before. (Professor Joseph, Life Sciences) (d) Tools that support hypothesis testing Finally, the researchers have also described how IT promotes their ability to test hypotheses and models. See, for example, the above Section 5.3. 6. Discussion The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects of IT on higher order thinking strategies in authentic research settings. Our ndings show that two types of effects occur frequently: rst order effects in which existing thinking strategies are amplied but remain unchanged, and second order effects in which thinking strategies are altered and new strategies are formed. This indicates that IT is indeed fundamentally reshaping scientic thinking. Our analysis shows that the differences between researchers in the Life Sciences and in Judaic Studies are not as substantial as other studies have led us to expect (Finholt & Brooks, 1997; Porter, 1998). Judaic Studies researchers may have less computerized tools at their disposal, but the effects of IT on their thinking and research are as profound as those described by their Life Sciences colleagues (see Table 1). Behind the obvious differences in goals and methods, we saw many parallel changes in the two disciplines (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2). This leads us to assume that the results of our study are not discipline specic, and that the cognitive effects of IT have some general characteristics that cross different subjects and elds. In the following sections we will discuss some of these characteristics and several of the questions they evoke. 6.1. How important are rst order effects of IT? The fact that two thirds of the researchers (16 out of 24, 66.6%), described both rst and second order effects, indicates that both types of effects occur side-by-side. While the theoretical literature on the cognitive effects of IT

142

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

tends to highlight second order effects (Pea, 1985; Perkins, 1985), our interviewees placed great emphasis on rst order effects as well. Professor Sara, for example, repeatedly pointed out that ITs sole effect on her work was speeding up her thinking processes or increasing their scope, but she also emphasized the importance of this contribution to her research. This observation calls for a rethinking of our original question, adopted from Perkins (1985): What difference can IT really make? This question assumes that real, and hence important, effects are second order effects since these effects change human activity. Yet rst order effects of IT appeared just as real to the researchers we interviewed. Technologys potential to amplify existing thinking strategies, without altering them, is important and valuable in its own right. 6.2. What conditions are necessary for creating meaningful effects of IT? Perkins (1985) pointed out that second order effects of IT are not only a result of technological opportunities, but also very much an issue of motivation. According to the researchers we interviewed, second order effects of IT were indeed more likely to occur when the opportunities offered by technology were core to the researchers agenda. For example, Judaic Studies scholars that deal with ancient manuscripts and need to analyze and compare large amounts of data are more affected by computers than Judaic Studies scholars who deal mainly with interpretive issues. Biologists who base their research on computerized analysis and visualization of large amounts of data are more affected by IT than biologists who base their research on wet lab experiments and on their own intuition and insight. Academic researchers are typically busy and therefore pragmatic people. Consequently, the extent to which they use IT directly correlates to the perceived benet of technology in answering their needs. Second order effects of IT usually take place when an authentic need meets a technological opportunity. The retrospective nature of our study does not enable us to speculate on the role of mindful engagement (Salomon et al., 1991) in creating an intellectual partnership with the computer. We have, however, observed, that the greater the contribution of IT to the researchers core research agenda, the more effects were described by the researchers, and the deeper the partnership they saw with the computer. This observation may have relevancy for educational settings as well. Basing the use of IT in school on authentic tasks and research projects, to which IT may indeed contribute signicantly, might promote meaningful and mindful use of IT (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996) that would affect students thinking strategies. Of course, there may be other factors which explain differences among researchers, such as the researchers thinking styles or their attitudes towards innovations. 6.3. Does IT lead to new thinking strategies? One type of second order effects of IT that we observed was the ability to engage in activities that were previously out of reach (Lajoie, 1993). A typical example is the ability to research new questions that could not have been investigated previously (see Section 5.1). Another example is the ability to link concepts that could not have been linked otherwise (see Section 5.2). Do these types of changes indicate the generation of new thinking strategies, or does the change amount only to using the same old thinking strategies in new and wider contexts, so that they generate new questions and connections? Perhaps engagement in out-of-reach activities is a result of improved thinking strategies, but this may not always be the case. It appears that given new technological tools, the same thinking strategies can sometimes lead to new outcomes. On the other hand, in several cases our interviewees explicitly expressed the view that IT had second order effects on their thinking strategies, and not only on the outcomes of their thinking. This was apparent in the interviewees ability to look at data or ask questions from a global or holistic viewpoint, in their capacity to simultaneously examine and compare multiple models and ideas, or in their use of new evaluation criteria and methods. The above observations suggest that we need to rene our denitions of the effects of IT. Recall that rst order effects of IT on thinking were dened as amplication of existing thinking strategies, without changing their nature, and that second order effects of IT on thinking were dened as the creation of new thinking strategies, signicant changes to existing thinking strategies, or engagement in out of reach cognitive activities. Our observation

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145 Table 3 A revised classication of the effects of IT on thinking A. Effects on the outcomes of thinking 1. First order effects of IT (amplication) 1A. Outcomes may increase in scope, or may be achieved more quickly and efciently, while remaining basically the same. Examples: Professor Michaels questions (section 5.1), or Professor Saras models (section 5.3) 2A. IT leads to new outcomes, or new types of outcomes that could not exist before. Examples: Professor Aarons questions (section 5.1), or models (section 5.3) B. Effects on thinking

143

1B. Existing thinking strategies are amplied, but not changed. Examples: Professor Ruths strategies of making connections (section 5.2), or Professor Sharons evaluation process (section 5.4) 2B. IT enables new thinking strategies, signicant changes to existing thinking strategies, or engagement in out of reach cognitive activities. Examples: Professor Sharons strategies of making connections (section 5.2), or Professor Debras evaluation process (section 5.4)

2. Second order effects of IT (alteration)

that the same thinking strategies can sometimes lead to new outcomes suggests that each of these effects can be divided into two sub-types: effects on the outcomes of thinking processes, i.e., on the type of knowledge they generate, and effects on thinking itself. This distinction may be applied to both rst and second order effects of IT (see Table 3). In our interviews we encountered examples of all four sub-types of effects. Our data also shows that these effects do not rule out each other and can often occur side-by-side. The fact that IT can lead to signicant changes in higher order thinking strategies should be taken into account when setting educational goals and planning how to integrate IT in school. Previous research suggests that students are more likely to acquire new thinking strategies when these strategies are presented as explicit educational goals, and when the students have sufcient opportunities to verbalize and explain their thinking (Adey, 2004, 2006; Wegerif, 2003). Thus, educators need to be aware of the new thinking strategies promoted by the use of IT and to provide ample opportunities for students to engage in explicit verbal activities pertaining to these strategies. 6.4. How are cognitions distributed? Are the effects we observed effects with technology, i.e. effects that are created while working with the computer, or effects of technology, i.e. transferable cognitive residue (Salomon et al., 1991)? In other words, do the cognitive changes described by the researchers we interviewed extend beyond the times in which they interact with their computers? The data of this study cannot offer a conclusive answer to this intriguing question, which therefore calls for further research. Note that effects of technology are likely to occur only in cases of second order effects on thinking (see cell 2B in Table 3), because only in these cases thinking strategies are actually changed or created. This is an example of how cognitive changes in the individual result from a partnership with a technological innovation that embodies the social and cultural environment in which it was created. In our opinion, these types of effects support the view regarding a synthesis between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives of knowledge construction (see section 2.2). Perkins (1993) suggested that higher order knowledge is located in the person, or distributed among minds, rather than physically downloaded. Indeed, all cases of downloading or off-loading described by our interviewees were of lower order processes such as memorization and computation. Higher order thinking processes appear to be in the person, as proposed by Perkins. But are they only in the person, or are they distributed between minds and tools? The fact that IT indeed creates second order changes in higher order thinking strategies suggests, in our opinion, that these strategies do have a distributed nature, and that they reect a growing intellectual partnership between people and computers. To conclude, our ndings show that a study of how experts work and think with computers may offer us valuable insights regarding future possible developments of peoples thinking in a technological society.

144

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

Appendix A. Sample interview questions and analysis categories

Interview questions How do you evaluate the contribution of IT to your research, is it a signicant or a technical contribution? Why? How does IT affect your research? Has IT affected your thinking? If yes, in which ways? Does IT cause you to think in new ways? Has IT affected your research goals? How? Does IT enable you to investigate new questions, or new types of questions?

Analysis categories IT causes the creation of new thinking strategies, signicant changes to existing thinking strategies, or enables out of reach cognitive activities (second order effects). IT amplies existing thinking strategies without changing their nature (rst order effects). IT does not affect thinking strategies. IT causes the creation of new questions, or changes the type of questions asked (second order effects). The researcher can ask wider or bigger questions. The researcher can ask more specic or detailed questions. IT helps investigate questions which were previously difcult or even impossible to answer, but the questions themselves are not new and have not changed as a result of the introduction of IT (rst order effects). IT does not affect research questions.

References
Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Adey, P. (2006). A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 4956. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Barry, C. A. (1997). The research activity timeline: A qualitative tool for information research. Library & Information Science Research, 19(2), 153179. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on developments in the science of learning, commission on behavioral and social sciences and education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientic arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191213. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175218. Cobb, P. (2005). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive constructivism perspectives. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3960). New York and London: Teachers College Press. Cole, M., & Engstrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, D., Cox, D., & Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356369. Finholt, T. A., & Brooks, J. M. (1997). Analysis of JSTOR: The impact on scholarly practice of access to on-line journal archives. Paper presented at the Conference on Scholarly Communication and Technology. Atlanta, GA, April 2425, 1997. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 517. Hill, J. R., & Hannan, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 3764. Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners science content understandings with the use of online resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323346. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693719). NY: Macmillan. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools. Volume two: No more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Land, S., & Greene, B. (2000). Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 4568. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 521.

S. Barzilai, A. Zohar / Thinking Skills and Creativity 1 (2006) 130145

145

March, J. G. (1987). Old colleges, new technology. In S. B. Kiesler, & L. S. Sproul (Eds.), Computing and change on campus (pp. 1627). New York: Cambridge University Press. Marzano, R., Brandt, R., Hughes, C., Jones, B., Presseisen, B., Rankin, S., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Owston, R. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and earning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 2733. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplication: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167182. Pea, R. D. (1987). Integrating human and computer intelligence. In R. D. Pea, & K. Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing (pp. 128146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 4787). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, D. N. (1985). The ngertip effect: How information processing technology changes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 1117. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-Plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88110). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, D. N., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. West, & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 7088). New York, NY: Oxford University. Porter, S. (1998). Into the future: Scholarly needs, current provisions, and future directions. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 4, 190224. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as a social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 119). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 29. Salomon, G. (1993a). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salomon, G. (1993b). No distribution without individuals cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed, cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (2000). Technology and education in the age of information. Haifa and Tel-Aviv, Israel: University of Haifa and Zmora-Bitan Press (In Hebrew). Salomon, G. (2000b). Its not just the tool but the educational rationale that counts. Invited keynote address at the 2000 Ed-Media Meeting, Montreal, June 28. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Wallace, R., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75104. Wegerif, R. (2003). Literature review in thinking skills, technology and learning, report for futurelab. Retrieved on 12 April 2006 from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/ts01.htm. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students learning and teacher professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Sarit Barzilai is a PhD student at the School of Education of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the pedagogical director of the Snunit Center for the Advancement of Web-Based Learning at the Hebrew University. Her main research interests are the cognitive and metacognitive effects of information technology. Anat Zohar is an associate professor at the School of Education in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her main research interests are processes of teaching and learning that emphasize higher order thinking, inquiry and metacognition. She also studies gender differences in thinking and learning science.