Just a clarification of my position, in response to mikes clarification:
I understand artifact as transcending material substance. (computer models
are one example) I think an essential aspect to capture is the making and
remaking of artifact through adaption, adoption, and appropriation (blurring
distinctions here). It has been pointed out how folks (constructivists such
as cobb) have misinterpreted 'cultural transmission' as process of direct
copy, essentially not recognizing that artifacts are remade as they are
appropriated. My study of students use of computer models indicates that the
models are not so analogical to the child as to the scientist/programmer who
created them, but more so as a novel phenomena to be understood. Computer
models being less material than something like a knife or fork create some
interesting opportunities to study cultural transmission (in science
education).
Folks who have studied design recognize that design is purposeful, ideational
and symbolic and so it goes with creating and using computer models. Motive
seems not so easily appropriated and is near the sticking point when students
do not use computer models the way scientists do. All of this is blurred in
the most wonderful way with 'microworld' environments that enable students to
'create' models in accord with microworld rules. Hmmm...
Bill B