Does technology make us smarter? Salomon and Perkins (2005) arrange to systematically answer this research question. The researchers develop three cognitive constructs to define cognitive technologies: 1) the effects with technology as a scaffold of operating a technological tool, 2) the effects of technology as a scaffold of mastering a technological tool, and 3) effects through technology as a scaffold of using a technological tool. Within the framework of these constructs, the researchers heuristically offer a broad perspective on technology, especially in terms of measuring cognitive technologies and in terms of whether or whether not those cognitive technologies make us smarter. The researchers use examples to metaphorically discourse the cognitive technologies.
Learners-practitioners, on a beginning order of learning-teaching discourse, may assess and appreciate the effort the scholars scaffold in the three cognitive technologies. Learners-practitioners could easily connect with the human ecological and interrelationships with, of and through the three cognitive technological approaches. Learners-practitioners may walk away and claim the context and content of the cognitive technologies are dynamic in enunciation and the outcomes are argumentative and plausible. Whereas, practitioners-scholars, on a higher order of learning-teaching discourse, may assess the content and context of the paper as formative and antiquated. For instance, the surroundings and environmental factors are constructed from technology that is nearly twenty years or older. On a critical note, the researchers build from previous work that was dated to the 60s and 70s. Much of the research is quoted from previous work.
As a learner-practitioner-scholar, on a higher learning-teaching discourse, I reflect the cognitive technologies are rich in dialogue but lack the characteristic of modernity. Using a car analogy, I am in a very nice car, the car has all the whistles and bells, yet the car lacks an engine and it goes nowhere. In the case of this paper, the engine meaning the paper has no methods section or research design to drive the research from and to a higher learning-teaching discourse and to a higher learner-practitioner-scholar discourse. Thus, the information in this research paper is unreliable and lacks external validity. Moreover, the information in this research paper is not generalizable.
To support higher learning-teaching discourse, or constructivist approach or learning inquiry, the researchers need to perform an investigation and conduct an experimental design that scaffolds the three cognitive technologies into three control groups. The control groups will include digital learners from each cognitive technology with variables that are manipulative and relative to technology with, technology of and technology through. The digital learners will be given specific research questions that are driven from broader research questions. The results will be measured and reported. In short, this paper needs to be updated to modernity and driven with a viable methods section or experimental design.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg, & D. D. Preiss (Eds). Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.