Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

268 The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology
iii. The validity of the units of analysis adopted according to the answer given to several previous questions.
In this respect, the discussion focuses on the viability and validity of using units of analysis that can
bring together both mind and culture.
We will devote the next paragraphs in our paper to discuss the different answers that may
be given to the above questions by grounding the constructivist option in which we position
ourselves.
Regarding the first question, it may be fruitful to focus the debate not so much on whether
intrapsychic processes exist or not, but on the question of what can such processes add to
our understanding of the learning process. For instance, if we adopt a broader approach to the
concept of mind, the question could be, how does such a broadening affect our understanding of
the processes taking place in the classroom?
The answer, at least taking into account what we presently know, cannot be a simple one. As
Salomon argues in his compilation on distributed cognition, we may consider different entities
in different contexts. Thus, in certain educational contexts cognition is likely to be a collective
process, depending above all on the organization of such cultural contexts. A good example is
classrooms which are organized as learning communities, that is, classrooms in which learning
benefits from the social interaction among equals. However, not all contexts are organized in this
way and, in some cases, they function as individual contexts as well. Thus, contexts where we
think with others and contexts where we think on our own with the help of other cultural artifacts
can coexist.
This point leads us to the second question suggested: the existence and/or functionality of the
notion of individual mental representations. The connection between individual representations
and social activities is difficult to ignore, but it is also obvious that it is not an isomorphic one,
and that it is not always a smooth one. Salomon defines it as a “spiral of effects” that mutually
influence each other.
Moreover, research results from studies on conceptual and representational change consistently
question the existence of schematic representations that are stable and relatively independent
from their context. As a result, among other things, of the persistence of implicit theories, the
coexistence of contradictory knowledge, and the nonactivation of certain schemata in certain
contexts, a new representational model has been proposed from cognitive psychology which is
more in line with the social approach to learning and cognition, and more congruent with a view
of cognitive functioning characterized by flexibility and adaptation to context.
Such a new model, as we have already pointed out in previous works, includes the existence
of intermediate levels of representation between schemata and action—levels of a potentially
explicit nature and highly context-dependent—called mental models (Liesa & Castelló, in press).
We believe that this new representational model constitutes a potentially significant cornerstone
for the construction of a new integrative paradigm in which individual representations as well as
a cultural approach to teaching and learning processes can find room.
Finally, regarding the third of the threads suggested above and following the previous line
of thought, we believe that it is not only possible but also highly desirable to broaden the
unit of analysis of educational psychology to the social and cultural, that is, to action, activity,
interaction, or interactivity. This is particularly the case if we assume that educational situations
must be studied in context and that teaching and learning processes in school settings are always
socially and culturally situated.
However, this does not solve the problem of the complexity of devising and conducting educational
research studies in culturally situated contexts—quite the contrary. Even if an interactive
unit of analysis facilitates the understanding of social action taking place in the classroom, it
does not allow us to grasp the relationship between such an action and the different levels of