Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking

and Representing Knowledge

David Jonassen
Pennsylvania State University, USA
jonassen@[Link]

Introduction

Traditionally, instructional technologies have been used as media for conveying

information, much as teachers do. When used in this way, information is "stored" in the
technology. During the "instructional" process, learners interpret the messages stored in the
technology as they "interact" it. However, those interactions are very limited. The technology
program judges the learner's response and provides feedback about how accurately the
learners' responses resembled what was presented to them. Learning is limited to the
acquisition and repetition of information. Such learning is not meaningful. Using computers to
"teach" students in this traditional way is not appropriate because it does not mindfully engage
students in making meaning.
In this paper, I argue that technologies should not support learning by attempting to
instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction and representation
tools that students learn with, not from . In this way, learners function as designers, and the
computers function as Mindtools for helping learners to interpret and organize their personal
knowledge.
Mindtools are computer applications that, when used by learners to represent what they
know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content they are studying
(Jonassen, 1996). Mindtools scaffold different forms of reasoning about the content that
students are studying. That is, they require students to think about what they know in
different, meaningful ways. For instance, using databases to organize students’ understanding
of content organization necessarily engages them in analytical reasoning, where creating an
expert system rule base requires them to think about the causal relationships between ideas.
Students cannot use Mindtools as learning strategies without thinking deeply about what they
are studying.

Using Computers as Mindtools

Mindtools repurpose computer applications to engage learners in critical thinking. There
are several classes of Mindtools, including semantic organization tools, dynamic modeling
tools, information interpretation tools, knowledge construction tools, and conversation and
collaboration tools (Jonassen, in press). I shall briefly describe and illustrate some of them.
For a report of research on Mindtools, see Jonassen and Reeves (1996).

Semantic Organization Tools

Semantic organization tools help learners to analyze and organize what they know or
what they are learning. Two of the best known semantic organization tools are databases and
semantic networking (concept mapping) tools.

1
Databases. Database management systems are computerized record keeping systems that
were developed originally to replace paper-based filing systems. These electronic filing
cabinets allow users to store information in organized databases that facilitates retrieval.
Content is broken down into records that are divided into fields which describe the kind of
information in different parts of each record.
Databases can be used as tools for analyzing and organizing subject matter (i.e.
Mindtools). The database shown in Figure 1 was developed by students studying cells and
their functions in a biology course. The database can then be searched and sorted to answer
specific questions about the content or to identify interrelationships and inferences from the
content, such as "Do different shaped cells have specific functions?" Constructing content
databases requires learners to develop a data structure, locate relevant information, insert it in
appropriate fields and records, and search and sort the database to answer content queries. A
large number of critical thinking skills are required to use and construct knowledge-oriented
databases.

Figure 1. Content database.

2
 Figure 2. Semantic network.
Semantic Networking. Semantic networking tools provide visual screen tools for
producing concept maps. Concept mapping is a study strategy that requires learners to
draw visual maps of concepts connected to each other via lines (links). These maps are
spatial representations of ideas and their interrelationships that are stored in memory, i.e.
structural knowledge (Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci, 1993). Semantic networking
programs are computer-based, visualizing tools for developing representations of semantic
networks in memory. Programs such as SemNet, Learning Tool, Inspriation, Mind
Mapper, and many others, enable learners to interrelate the ideas that they are studying in
multidimensional networks of concepts, to label the relationships between those concepts,
and to describe the nature of the relationships between all of the ideas in the network, such
as that in Figure 2.
The purpose of semantic networks is to represent the structure of knowledge that
someone has constructed. So, creating semantic networks requires learners to analyze the
structural relationships among the content they are studying. By comparing semantic
networks created at different points in time, they can also be used as evaluation tools for
assessing changes in thinking by learners. If we agree that is a semantic network is a
meaningful representations of memory, then learning from this perspective can be thought of
as a reorganization of semantic memory. Producing semantic networks reflect those changes
in semantic memory, since the networks describe what learners know. So, semantic
networking programs can be use to reflect the process of knowledge construction.

3
Dynamic Modeling Tools
While semantic organization tools help learners to represent the semantic relationships
among ideas, dynamic modeling tools help learners to describe the dynamic relationships
among ideas. Dynamic modeling tools include spreadsheets, expert systems, systems
modeling tools, and microworlds, among others.

Spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are computerized, numerical record keeping systems that were
designed originally to replace paper-based, ledger accounting systems. Essentially, a
spreadsheet is a grid or matrix of empty cells with columns identified by letters and rows
identified by numbers. Each cell is a placeholder for values, formulas relating values in other
cells, or functions that mathematically or logically manipulate values in other cells. Functions
are small programmed sequences that may, for instance, match values in cells with other cells,
look up a variable in a table of values, or create an index of values to be compared with other
cells.
Spreadsheets were originally developed and are most commonly used to support business
decision making and accounting operations. They are especially useful for answering “what if”
questions, for instance, what if interest rates increased by one percent? Changes made in one
cell automatically recalculate all of the affected values in other cells. Spreadsheets are also
commonly used for personal accounting and budgeting.
Spreadsheets also may be used as Mindtools for amplifying mental functioning. In the
same way that they have qualitatively changed the accounting process, spreadsheets can
change the educational process when working with quantitative information. Spreadsheets
model the mathematical logic that is implied by calculations. Making the underlying logic
obvious to learners should improve their understanding of the interrelationships and
procedures. Numerous educators have explored the use of spreadsheets as Mindtools.
Spreadsheets have frequently been used in mathematics classes to calculate quantitative
relationships in various chemistry and physics classes. They are also useful in social studies
instruction and have even supported ecology. Spreadsheets are flexible Mindtools for
representing, reflecting on, and calculating quantitative information. Building spreadsheets
requires abstract reasoning by the user, they are rule-using tools that require that users become
rule-makers. Spreadsheets also support problem solving activities, such decision analysis
reasoning requires learners to consider implications of conditions or options, which requires
entails higher order reasoning.

Expert Systems. Expert systems have evolved from research in the field of artificial
intelligence. An expert system is a computer program that simulates the way human experts
solve problems, that is, an artificial decision maker. They are computer-based tools that are
designed to function as intelligent decision supports. For example, expert systems have been
developed to help geologists decide where to drill for oil, bankers to evaluate loan application,
computer sales technicians how to configure computer systems, and employees to decide
among a large number of company benefits alternatives. Problems whose solutions require
decision making are good candidates for expert system development.
Most expert systems consist of several components, including the knowledge base,
inference engine, and user interface. There are a variety of “shells” or editors for creating
expert system knowledge bases, which is the part of the activity that engages the critical

4
thinking. Building the knowledge base requires the learner to articulate causal knowledge.
The development of expert systems results in deeper understanding because they provide
an intellectual environment that demands the refinement of domain knowledge, supports
problem solving, and monitors the acquisition of knowledge. A good deal of research has
focused on developing expert system advisors to help teachers identify and classify learning
disabled students.

Systems Modeling Tools. Complex learning requires students to solve complex and ill-
structured problems as well as simple problems. Complex learning requires that students

Beast Power 4.1

Strength of Beast 98.2

Strength of Beast

buildup
beating down the beast

Fear
~ ~ ~
Society Building
Buildup Factor beating down per act

Rescue Belief

SBA @ U of RB
Diminishing

Faith Building

Rescue Belief 4.9

~

~ Doubt Factor

Memory of home

Fig. 4. Conceptual map of the Beast.

develop complex mental representations of the phenomena they are studying. A number of
tools for developing these mental representations are emerging. Stella, for instance, is a
powerful and flexible tool for building simulations of dynamic systems and processes (systems
with interactive and interdependent components). Stella uses a simple set of building block
icons to construct a map of a process (see Fig. 4). The Stella model in Fig. 4 was developed
by an English teacher in conjunction with his tenth grade students to describing how the boys'
loss of hope drives the increasing power of the beast in William Golding's novel, The Lord of
the Flies. The model of beast power represent the factors that contributed to the strength of
the beast in the book, including fear and resistance. Each component can be opened up, so that

5
values for each component may be stated as constants or variables. Variables can be stated as
equations containing numerical relationships among any of the variables connected to it. The
resulting model can be run, changing the values of faith building, fear, and memory of home
experienced by the boys while assessing the effects on their belief about being rescued and the
strength of the beast within them. Stella and other dynamic modeling tools, such as Model-It
from the Highly Interactive Computing Group at the University of Michigan, probably
provides the most complete intellectual activity that students can engage in.

Microworlds. Microworlds are exploratory learning environments or discovery spaces in

which learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on one another.
Microworlds contain constrained simulations of real-world phenomena that allow learners to
control those phenomena. They provide the exploratory functionality (provide learners with
the observation and manipulation tools and testing objects) needed to explore phenomena in
those parts of the world. Video-based adventure games are microworlds that require players
to master each environment before moving onto more complex environments. They are
compelling to youngsters, who spend hours transfixed in these adventure worlds.
Microworlds are perhaps the ultimate example of active learning environments, because the
users can exercise so much control over the environment.

Fig.5. Experiment in Math World..

6
 Many microworlds are being produced and made available from educational research
projects, especially in math and science. In mathematics, the Geometric Supposer and
Algebraic Supposer are standard tools for testing conjectures in geometry and algebra by
constructing and manipulating geometric and algebraic objects in order to explore the
relationships within and between these objects (Yerulshamy & Schwartz, 1986). The
emphasis in those microworlds is the generation and testing of hypotheses. They provide a
testbed for testing students' predictions about geometric and algebraic proofs.
The SimCalc project teaches middle and high school students calculus concepts through
MathWorlds, which is a microworld consisting of animated worlds and dynamic graphs in
which actors move according to graphs. By exploring the movement of the actors in the
simulations and seeing the graphs of their activity, students begin to understand important
calculus ideas. In the MathWorlds activity illustrated in Fig. 5, students match two motions.
By matching two motions they learn how velocity and position graphs relate. Students must
match the motion of the green and red graphs. To do this, they can change either graph. They
iteratively run the simulation to see if you got it right! Students may also use MathWorld's
link to enter their own bodily motion. For example, a student can walk across the classroom,
and their motions would be entered into MathWorlds through sensing equipment. MathWorld
would plot their motion, enabling the students to explore the properties of their own motion.

Information Interpretation Tools

The volume and complexity of information are growing at an astounding rate. Learners
need tools that help them to access and process that information. A new class of intelligent
information search engines are scanning information resources, like the World Wide Web, and
locating relevant resources for learners. Other tools, for helping learners make sense of what
they find, are also emerging.

Visualization Tools. We take in more information through our visual modality than any other
sensory system, yet we cannot output ideas visually, except in mental images and dreams,
which cannot be shared visually except using paint/draw programs. While it is not yet possible
to dump our mental images directly from our brains into a computer, a very new and growing
class of visualization tools are mediating this process by providing us tools that allow us to
reason visually in certain areas. Visualization tools help humans to represent and convey those
mental images, usually not in the same form they are generated mentally, but as rough
approximations of those mental images.

7
 Fig 6. Tool for visualizing chemical compounds.

Visualization tools can have two major uses, interpretive and expressive (Gordin,
Edelson & Gomez, 1996). Interpretive tools help learners view and manipulate visuals,
extracting meaning from the information being visualized. Interpretive illustrations help to
clarify difficult-to-understand text and abstract concepts, making them more comprehensible
(Levin, Anglin, & Carney, 1995). Expressive visualization helps learners to visually convey
meaning in order to communicate a set of beliefs. Crayons and paper or paint and draw
programs are powerful expressive tools that learners use to express themselves visually.
However, they rely on graphical talent. Visualization tools go beyond paint and draw
programs by scaffolding or supporting some of the expression, They help learners to visualize
ideas in ways that make them more easily interpretable by other viewers. An excellent example
of an expressive visualization tool is the growing number of tools for visualizing chemical
compounds. Understanding chemical bonding is difficult for most people, because the
complex atomic interactions are not visible. Static graphics of these bonds found in textbooks
may help learners to form mental images, but those mental images are not manipulable and
cannot be conveyed to others. Tools such as MacSpartan enables students to view, rotate,
and measure molecules using different views (see Fig. 6) and also to modify or construct new
molecules. These visualization tools make the abstract real for students, helping them to
understand chemical concepts that are difficult to convey in static displays.

8
Knowledge Construction Tools
Papert has used the term "constructionism" to describe the process of knowledge
construction resulting from constructing things. When learners function as designers of
objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them.

Hypermedia
Hypermedia consists of information nodes, which are the basic unit of information storage and
may consist of a page of text, a graphic, a sound bite, a video clip, or even an entire document. In
many hypermedia systems, nodes can be amended or modified by the user. The user may add to or
change the information in a node or create his or her own nodes of information, so that a hypertext
can be a dynamic knowledge base that continues to grow, representing new and different points of
view. Nodes are made accessible through links that interconnect them. The links in hypermedia
transport the user through the information space to the nodes that are selected, enabling the user to
navigate through the knowledge base. The node structure and the link structure form a network of
ideas in the knowledge base, the interrelated and interconnected group or system of ideas.
While hypermedia systems have traditionally been used as information retrieval systems
which learners browse, learners may create their own hypermedia knowledge bases that reflect
their own understanding of ideas. Students are likely to learn more by constructing
instructional materials than by studying them. Designing multimedia presentations is a
complex process that engages many skills in learners, and it can be applied to virtually any
content domain. Carver, Lehrer, Connell, & Ericksen (1992) list some of the major thinking
skills that learners need to use as designers, including project management skills, research
skills, organization and representation skills, presentation skills, and reflection skills.

Conversation Tools
Newer theories of learning are emphasizing the social as well as the constructivist nature
of the learning process. In real world settings, we often learn by socially negotiating meaning,
not by being taught. A variety of synchronous and asynchronous computer-supported
environments are available for supporting this social negotiation process. Online
telecommunications include live conversations, such as Chats, MOOs, and MUDs and
videoconferencing, and asynchronous discussions, including electronic mail, Listservs, bulletin
boards, and computer conferences. These many forms of telecommunications can be used for
supporting interpersonal exchanges among students, collecting information, and solving
problems in groups of students (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1998).Interpersonal exchanges
may include keypals, global classrooms, electronic appearances, electronic mentoring, and
impersonations (Harris, 1995). Examples of information collections include information
exchanges, database creation, electronic publishing, electronic field trips, and pooled data
analysis. Problem-solving projects include information searches, parallel problem solving,
electronic process writing, serial creations, simulations, and social action projects.
Online communication presumes that students can communicate, that is, that they can
meaningfully participate in conversations. In order to do that, they need to be able to interpret
messages, consider appropriate responses, and construct coherent replies. Many students are
not able to engage in cogent and coherent discourse. Why? Because, most students have
rarely been asked to contribute their opinions about topics. They have been too busy
memorizing what the teachers tell them. So, it may be necessary to support students’ attempts

9
to converse. A number of online communication environments have been designed to support
students' discourse skills, such as the Collaboratory Notebook (O'Neill & Gomez, 1994). The
Collaboratory Notebook is a collaborative hypermedia composition system designed to
support within- and cross-school science projects. What is unique about the Collaboratory is
that it focuses on project investigations rather than curricular content. During a project, the
teacher or any student can pose a question or a conjecture (Fig. 6), which can be addressed by
participants from around the country. The Collaboratory provides a scaffolding structure for
conversations by requiring specific kinds of responses to messages. For instance, in order to
support the conjecture in Fig. 6, learners can only "provide evidence" or "develop a plan" to
support that conjecture. This form of scaffolded conversation results in more coherent and
cogent conversations.

Collaborative conversations are becoming an increasingly popular way to support socially co-
constructed learning. Many more sophisticated computer-supported conferencing
environments are becoming available to support learner conversations.

10
 Rationales for Using Technology as Mindtools

Why do Mindtools work, that is, why do they engage learners in critical, higher-order
thinking about content?

Learners as Designers
The people who learn the most from designing instructional materials are the designers,
not the learners for whom the materials are intended. The process of articulating what we
know in order to construct a knowledge base forces learners to reflect on what they are
studying in new and meaningful ways. The common homily, "the quickest way to learn about
something is to have to teach it,"explains the effectiveness of Mindtools, because learners are
teaching the computer. It is important to emphasize that Mindtools are not intended
necessarily to make learning easier. Learners do not use Mindtools naturally and effortlessly.
Rather, Mindtools often require learners to think harder about the subject matter domain being
studied while generating thoughts that would be impossible without the tool. While they are
thinking harder, learners are also thinking more meaningfully as they construct their own
realities by designing their own knowledge bases.

Knowledge Construction, Not Reproduction

Mindtools represent a constructivist use of technology. Constructivism is concerned with
the process of how we construct knowledge. When students develop databases, for instance,
they are constructing their own conceptualization of the organization of a content domain.
How we construct knowledge depends upon we already know, which depends on the kinds of
experiences that we have had, how we have organized those experiences into knowledge
structures, and what we believe about what we know. So, the meaning that each of us makes
for an experience resides in the mind of each knower. This does not mean that we can
comprehend only our own interpretation of reality. Rather, learners are able to comprehend a
variety of interpretations and to use each in constructing personal knowledge.
Constructivist approaches to learning strive to create environments where learners
actively participate in the environment in ways that are intended to help them construct their
own knowledge, rather than having the teacher interpret the world and insure that students
understand the world as they have told them. In constructivist environments, like Mindtools,
learners are actively engaged in interpreting the external world and reflecting on their
interpretations. This is not "active" in the sense that learners actively listen and then mirror the
one correct view of reality, but rather "active" in the sense that learners must participate and
interact with the surrounding environment in order to create their own view of the subject.
Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in the organization and representation of
what they know.

11
Learning with Technology
The primary distinction between computers as tutors and computers as Mindtools is best
expressed by Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) as the effects of technology versus the
effects with computer technology. Learning with computers refers to the learner entering an
intellectual partnership with the computer. Learning with Mindtools depends "on the mindful
engagement of learners in the tasks afforded by these tools and that there is the possibility of
qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus technology." In
other words, when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by
them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking
and learning. The result of an intellectual partnership with the computer is that the whole of
learning becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Electronics specialists use their tools to
solve problems. The tools do not control the specialist. Neither should computers control
learning. Rather, computers should be used as tools that help learners to build knowledge.

(Un)intelligent Tools
Educational communications too often try to do the thinking for learners, to act like tutors and
guide the learning. These systems possess some degree of "intelligence" that they use to make
instructional decisions about how much and what kind of instruction learners need. Derry and
LaJoie (1993) argue that "the appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a
teacher/expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension "cognitive tool" (p. 5). Mindtools are
unintelligent tools, relying on the learner to provide the intelligence, not the computer. This
means that planning, decision-making, and self-regulation of learning are the responsibility of
the learner, not the computer. However, computer systems can serve as powerful catalysts for
facilitating these skills assuming they are used in ways that promote reflection, discussion, and
problem solving.

Distributing Cognitive Processing

Computer tools, unlike most tools, can function as intellectual partners which share the
cognitive burden of carrying out tasks (Salomon, 1993). When learners use computers as
partners, they off-load some of the unproductive memorizing tasks to the computer, allowing
the learner to think more productively. Our goal as technology-using educators, should be to
allocate to the learners the cognitive responsibility for the processing they do best while
requiring the technology to do the processing that it does best. Rather than using the limited
capabilities of the computer to present information and judge learner input (neither of which
computers do well) while asking learners to memorize information and later recall it (which
computers do with far greater speed and accuracy than humans), we should assign cognitive
responsibility to the part of the learning system that does it the best. Learners should be
responsible for recognizing and judging patterns of information and then organizing it, while
the computer system should perform calculations, store, and retrieve information. When used
as Mindtools, we are engaging learners in the kinds or processing that they do best.

12
Cost and Effort Beneficial
Mindtools are personal knowledge construction tools that can be applied to any subject
matter domain. For the most part, Mindtools software is readily available and affordable.
Many computers come bundled with the software described in this paper. Most other
applications are in the public domain or available for less than $100. Mindtools are also
reasonably easy to learn. The level of skill needed to use Mindtools often requires limited
study. Most can be mastered within a couple of hours. Because they can be used to construct
knowledge in nearly any course, the cost and learning effort are even more reasonable.

Summary

Computers can most effectively support meaningful learning and knowledge construction
in higher education as cognitive amplification tools for reflecting on what students have
learned and what they know. Rather than using the power of computer technologies to
disseminate information, they should be used in all subject domains as tools for engaging
learners in reflective, critical thinking about the ideas they are studying. Using computers as
Mindtools by employing software applications as knowledge representation formalisms will
facilitate meaning making more readily and more completely than the computer-based
instruction now available. This paper has introduced the concept of Mindtools and provided
brief descriptions and some examples. More information and examples are available on the
World Wide Web ([Link]

13
 References

Carver, S.M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Ericksen, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design:
Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27 (3), 385-404.
Derry, S.J., & LaJoie, S.P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing:
An introduction. In S.P. LaJoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp.
1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gordin, D. N., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. (July, 1996). Scientific visualization as an
interpretive and expressive medium. In. D. Edelson & E. Domeshek (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the learning Sciences (pp. 409-
414). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in
Education.
Harris, J. (1995, February). Organizing and facilitating telecollaborative projects. The
Computing Teacher, 22 (5), 66-69. [Online document:
[Link]
Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D.H. (in press). Mindtools for engaging critical thinking in the classroom, 2nd Ed.
Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M.A. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques
for representing, assessing, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1998). Learning WITH technology: A
constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
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. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
O'Neill, D. K., & Gomez, L. M. (1992). The Collaboratory notebook: A distributed
knowledge building environment for project learning. Proceedings of ED MEDIA, 94.
Vancouver B. C., Canada.
Perkins, D.N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Salomon, G. , Perkins, D.N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human
intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
Yerulshamy, M., & Schwartz, J. (1986). The geometric supposer: Promoting thinking and
learning. Mathematics Teacher, 79, 418-422.

14