Hooks and Shifts: A Dialectical Study of Mediated Discovery
详细信息    查看全文
  • 作者：Dor Abrahamson (1)
    Dragan Trninic (1)
    Jose F. Guti茅rrez (1)
    Jacob Huth (1)
    Rosa G. Lee (1)
  • 关键词：Additive reasoning ; Cognition ; Conceptual change ; Design ; based research ; Discovery ; Embodied interaction ; Functional extension ; Guided reinvention ; Mathematics education ; Proportion ; Proportional reasoning ; Remote control ; Sociocultural ; Symbolic artifact ; Virtual object
  • 刊名：Technology, Knowledge and Learning
  • 出版年：2011
  • 出版时间：April 2011
  • 年：2011
  • 卷：16
  • 期：1
  • 页码：55-85
  • 全文大小：1001KB
  • 参考文献：1. Abrahamson, D. (2008). / The abduction of Peirce: the missing link between perceptual judgment and mathematical reasoning? Paper presented at the Townsend Working Group in Neuroscience and Philosophy (A. Rokem, J. Stazicker, & A. No毛, Organizers). UC Berkeley. Accessed June 1, 2010 at http://www.archive.org/details/ucb_neurophilosophy_2008_12_09_Dor_Abrahamson.
    2. Abrahamson, D. (2009a). A student鈥檚 synthesis of tacit and mathematical knowledge as a researcher鈥檚 lens on bridging learning theory. In M. Borovcnik & R. Kapadia (Eds.), / Research and developments in probability education [Special Issue]. / International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, / 4(3), 195鈥?26. Accessed Jan. 191, 2010 at http://www.iejme.com/032009/main.htm.
    3. Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 70(1), 27鈥?7. CrossRef
    4. Abrahamson, D. (2009c). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning鈥擳he case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. / Cognition and Instruction, / 27(3), 175鈥?24. CrossRef
    5. Abrahamson, D., Guti茅rrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning / . In R. Goldman (Chair), H. Kwah & D. Abrahamson (Organizers), & R. P. Hall (Discussant), / Diverse perspectives on embodied learning: what鈥檚 so hard to grasp? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG Advanced Technologies for Learning. New Orleans, LA, April 8鈥?2, 2011, http://edrl.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Abrahamson-etal.AERA2011-EmbLearnSymp.pdf.
    6. Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2008). / Kinemathics: kinetically induced mathematical learning. Paper presented at the UC Berkeley Gesture Study Group (E. Sweetser, Director), December 5, 2008. http://edrl.berkeley.edu/projects/kinemathics/Abrahamson-Howison-2008_kinemathics.pdf, http://edrl.berkeley.edu/projects/kinemathics/MIT.mov.
    7. Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2010a). / Embodied artifacts: Coordinated action as an object- / to- / think- / with. In D. L. Holton (Organizer & Chair) & J. P. Gee (Discussant) / , Embodied and enactive approaches to instruction: Implications and innovations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 30鈥揗ay 4. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/DAbrahamson/publications/Abrahamson-Howison-AERA2010-ReinholzTrninic.pdf.
    8. Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2010b). / Kinemathics: Exploring kinesthetically induced mathematical learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 30鈥揗ay 4.
    9. Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (in press). Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In P. Blikstein & P. Marshall (Eds.), / Proceedings of the 10th annual interaction design and children conference (IDC 2011). Ann Arbor, MI: IDC.
    10. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. In K. Makar & D. Ben-Zvi (Eds.), / The role of context in developing students鈥?reasoning about informal statistical inference [Special issue]. / Mathematical Thinking and Learning, / 13(1&2), 5鈥?6.
    11. Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. In D. Sch枚n, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.), / High technology and low income communities (pp. 235鈥?62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    12. Bamberger, J. (2010). Noting time. / Min- / Ad: Israel studies in musicology online (Vol. 8, issue 1&2), Retrieved November 9, 2010 from, http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad/2010/2002-Bamberger-Noting.pdf.
    13. Bamberger, J., & Sch枚n, D. A. (1983). Learning as reflective conversation with materials: Notes from work in progress. / Art Education, 36(2), 68鈥?3.
    14. Bamberger, J., & Sch枚n, D. A. (1991). Learning as reflective conversation with materials. In F. Steier (Ed.), / Research and reflexivity (pp. 186鈥?09). London: SAGE Publications.
    15. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. / Behavioral and Brain Sciences, / 22, 577鈥?60.
    16. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), / Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd revised edition ed., pp. 720鈥?49). Mahwah, NG: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    17. Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1993). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), / Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296鈥?33). NYC: Macmillan.
    18. Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H.-J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), / Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73鈥?05). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
    19. Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2008). Embodied semiotic activities and their role in the construction of mathematical meaning of motion graphs. / International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, / 13(2), 111鈥?34. CrossRef
    20. Brock, W. H., & Price, M. H. (1980). Squared paper in the nineteenth century: Instrument of science and engineering, and symbol of reform in mathematical education. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 11(4), 365鈥?81. CrossRef
    21. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), / Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547鈥?89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    22. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. / Human Development, / 39(5), 250鈥?56. CrossRef
    23. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O鈥檚hea (Eds.), / New directions in educational technology (pp. 15鈥?2). Berlin: Springer.
    24. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. / Educational Psychologist, / 28(1), 25鈥?2. CrossRef
    25. Confrey, J. (1998). Building mathematical structure within a conjecture driven teaching experiment on splitting. In S. B. Berenson, K. R. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. N. Coulombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff (Eds.), / Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 39鈥?8). Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
    26. Confrey, J. (2005). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), / The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135鈥?51). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    27. diSessa, A. A. (1995). Designing Newton鈥檚 laws: patterns of social and representational feedback in a learning task. In R.-J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), / Dialogue and interaction: modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 105鈥?22). Berlin: Springer.
    28. diSessa, A. A. (2005). A history of conceptual change research: threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), / The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265鈥?82). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    29. diSessa, A. A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. / Cognition and Instruction, / 25(4), 523鈥?65. CrossRef
    30. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. / Cognition and Instruction, / 26(4), 427鈥?29. CrossRef
    31. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. / The Journal of the Learning Sciences, / 13(1), 77鈥?03. CrossRef
    32. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior, / 10(2), 117鈥?60.
    33. diSessa, A. A., Philip, T. M., Saxe, G. B., Cole, M., & Cobb, P. (2010). / Dialectical approaches to cognition ( / Symposium) / . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 30鈥揗ay 4.
    34. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. / The Journal of the Learning Sciences, / 11(1), 105鈥?21. CrossRef
    35. Engestr枚m, Y. (2008). From design experiments to formative interventions. In G. Kanselaar, J. V. Merri毛nboer, P. Kirschner, & T. D. Jong (Eds.), / Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 3鈥?4). Utrecht, the Netherlands: ISLS.
    36. Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 1(1/2), 3鈥?. CrossRef
    37. Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 3(3/4), 413鈥?35. CrossRef
    38. Freudenthal, H. (1986). / Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    39. Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2005). Understanding ratio and proportion as an example of the apprehending zone and conceptual-phase problem-solving models. In J. Campbell (Ed.), / Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 213鈥?34). New York: Psychology Press.
    40. Gelman, R. (1998). Domain specificity in cognitive development: Universals and nonuniversals. In M. Sabourin, F. Craik, & M. Robert (Eds.), / Advances in psychological science: (Vol. 2 biological and cognitive aspects). Hove, England: Psychology Press Ltd. Publishers.
    41. Gelman, R., & Williams, E. (1998). Enabling constraints for cognitive development and learning: Domain specificity and epigenesis. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), / Cognition, perception and language (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 575鈥?30). New York: Wiley.
    42. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. / Topics in Cognitive Science, / 1(1), 107鈥?44. CrossRef
    43. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). / Entering the child鈥檚 mind. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
    44. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). / The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
    45. Goldin, G. A. (1987). Levels of language in mathematical problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), / Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 59鈥?5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    46. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), / Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517鈥?45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    47. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. / American Anthropologist, / 96(3), 603鈥?33. CrossRef
    48. Goody, J. (1977). / The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    49. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. / Mathematical Thinking and Learning, / 1(2), 155鈥?77. CrossRef
    50. Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. / Educational Psychologist, / 42(1), 9鈥?3. CrossRef
    51. Guti茅rrez, J. F., Trninic, D., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). / Hooks and shifts in instrumented mathematics learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG learning sciences). New Orleans, LA, April 8鈥?2, 2011. http://www.edrl.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/AERA2011-Hooks-and-Shifts.pdf.
    52. Hall, R. (2001). Cultural artifacts, self regulation, and learning: Commentary on Neuman鈥檚 鈥淐an the Baron von Munchhausen phenomenon be solved?鈥? / Mind, Culture & Activity, / 8(1), 98鈥?08. CrossRef
    53. Halld茅n, O., Scheja, M., & Haglund, L. (2008). The contextuality of knowledge: An intentional approach to meaning making and conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), / International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 509鈥?32). Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis.
    54. Harel, G. (in press). Intellectual need. In K. Leatham (Ed.), / Vital directions for mathematics education research. New York: Springer.
    55. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2003). Peirce鈥檚 鈥榙iagrammatic reasoning鈥?as a solution of the learning paradox. In G. Debrock (Ed.), / Process pragmatism: Essays on a quiet philosophical revolution (pp. 121鈥?43). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    56. Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The mathematical imagery trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg, & D. Tan (Eds.), / Proceedings of the annual meeting of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2011), Vancouver. May 7鈥?2, 2011 (Vol. 鈥淔ull Papers鈥? pp. 1989鈥?998). ACM: CHI (CD ROM).
    57. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. / Cognitive Science, / 19, 265鈥?88. CrossRef
    58. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. / Mind & Language, / 3(3), 183鈥?95. CrossRef
    59. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. In A. E. Kelly (Ed.), The role of design in educational research [Special issue]. / Educational Researcher, / 32, 3鈥?.
    60. Kirsh, D. (2006). Distributed cognition: a methodological note. In S. Harnad & I. E. Dror (Eds.), / Distributed cognition [Special issue]. / Pragmatics & Cognition, / 14(2), 249鈥?62.
    61. Kuchinsky, S. E., Bock, K., & Irwin, D. E. (2011). Reversing the hands of time: changing the mapping from seeing to saying. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, / 37(3), 748鈥?56. CrossRef
    62. Lakoff, G., & N煤帽ez, R. E. (2000). / Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
    63. Lee, J. C. (2008). Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote. / IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(3), 39鈥?5. lee.net/projects/wii/">http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/.
    64. Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. / ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, / 41, 427鈥?40. CrossRef
    65. McLuhan, M. (1964). / Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: The New American Library.
    66. McNeill, D., & Duncan, S. D. (2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), / Language and gesture (pp. 141鈥?61). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
    67. Meira, L. (2002). Mathematical representations as systems of notations-in-use. In K. Gravenmeijer, R. Lehrer, B. V. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), / Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 87鈥?04). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
    68. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). An unpublished text by Maurice Merleau-Ponty: prospectus of his work (trans: Dallery, A. B.). In J. M. Edie (Ed.), / The primacy of perception, and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work 1962).
    69. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In R. Nemirovsky, M. Borba (Coordinators), Perceptuo-motor activity and imagination in mathematics learning (research forum). In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), / Twenty seventh annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 105鈥?09). Honolulu, Hawaii: Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
    70. Neuman, Y. (2001). Can the Baron von M眉nchausen phenomenon be solved? An activity-oriented solution to the learning paradox. / Mind, Culture & Activity, / 8(1), 78鈥?9. CrossRef
    71. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). / The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    72. Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), / Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 17鈥?8). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    73. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 33(2), 203鈥?33. CrossRef
    74. N煤帽ez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 39, 45鈥?5. CrossRef
    75. Olive, J. (2000). Computer tools for interactive mathematical activity in the elementary school. / International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, / 5(3), 241鈥?62. CrossRef
    76. Olson, D. R. (1994). / The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    77. Papert, S. (1980). / Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. NY: Basic Books.
    78. Petrick, C., & Martin, T. (2011). / Hands up, know body move: Learning mathematics through embodied actions. Manuscript in progress.
    79. Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 26, 165鈥?90. CrossRef
    80. Pratt, D., & Kapadia, R. (2009). Shaping the experience of young and naive probabilists. Research and developments in probability education [Special Issue]. / International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, / 4(3), 213鈥?28.
    81. Prawat, R. S. (1999). Dewey, Peirce, and the learning paradox. / American Educational Research Journal, / 36, 47鈥?6.
    82. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students鈥?types of generalization. / Mathematical Thinking and Learning, / 5(1), 37鈥?0. CrossRef
    83. Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: Seeing structures in generalizing activities. / For the Learning of Mathematics, / 30(2), 2鈥?.
    84. Reinholz, D., Trninic, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). It鈥檚 not easy being green: embodied artifacts and the guided emergence of mathematical meaning. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), / Proceedings of the thirty- / second annual meeting of the North- / American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME- / NA 32) (Vol. VI, Chap. 18: technology, pp. 1488鈥?496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.
    85. Roth, W.-M. (2009). Embodied mathematical communication and the visibility of graphical features. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), / Mathematical representation at the interface of body and culture (pp. 95鈥?21). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    86. Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. S. (2009). Bodily experience and mathematical conceptions: From classical views to a phenomenological reconceptualization. In L. Radford, L. Edwards, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), / Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning [Special issue]. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 70(2), 175鈥?89.
    87. S谩enz-Ludlow, A. (2003). A collective chain of signification in conceptualizing fractions: A case of a fourth-grade class. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior, / 222, 181鈥?11. CrossRef
    88. Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context [Special issue]. / Educational Psychologist, 39(4).
    89. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). 鈥淐oncrete鈥?computer manipulatives in mathematics education. / Child Development Perspectives, / 3, 145鈥?50. CrossRef
    90. Saxe, G. B. (2004). Practices of quantification from a sociocultural perspective. In K. A. Demetriou & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), / Developmental change: Theories, models, and measurement (pp. 241鈥?63). NY: Cambridge University Press.
    91. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., et al. (2009). A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom communities. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), / Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 203鈥?22). Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis.
    92. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Making pasta and making mathematics: From cookbook procedures to really cooking. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), / Thinking practice in mathematics and science learning (pp. 299鈥?19). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
    93. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1991). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student鈥檚 evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), / Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 55鈥?75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    94. Sch枚n, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. / Research in Engineering Design, / 3, 131鈥?47. CrossRef
    95. Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. / Topics in Cognitive Science, / 1(2), 353鈥?67. CrossRef
    96. Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools. / Journal of the Learning Sciences, / 11(2&3), 319鈥?57. CrossRef
    97. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you鈥擬aking sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. / Journal of Learning Sciences, / 16(4), 567鈥?15. CrossRef
    98. Shank, G. (1987). Abductive strategies in educational research. / American Journal of Semiotics, / 5, 275鈥?90.
    99. Shank, G. (1998). The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. / Theory & Psychology, / 8(6), 841鈥?60. CrossRef
    100. Shreyar, S., Zolkower, B., & P茅rez, S. (2010). Thinking aloud together: A teacher鈥檚 semiotic mediation of a whole-class conversation about percents. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 73(1), 21鈥?3. CrossRef
    101. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From 鈥渢hought and language鈥?to 鈥渢hinking to speaking鈥? In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), / Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70鈥?6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    102. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. / Journal of the Learning Sciences, / 3(2), 115鈥?63. CrossRef
    103. Stetsenko, A. (2002). Commentary: Sociocultural activity as a unit of analysis: How Vygotsky and Piaget converge in empirical research on collaborative cognition. In D. J. Bearison & B. Dorval (Eds.), / Collaborative cognition: Children negotiating ways of knowing (pp. 123鈥?35). Westport, CN: Ablex Publishing.
    104. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), / Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107鈥?49). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    105. Stigler, J. W. (1984). 鈥淢ental abacus鈥? The effect of abacus training on Chinese children鈥檚 mental calculation. / Cognitive Psychology, / 16, 145鈥?76. CrossRef
    106. Thagard, P. (2010). How brains make mental models. In L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), / Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Abduction, logic, and computational discovery (pp. 447鈥?61). Berlin: Springer.
    107. Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students鈥?reasoning. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 38, 51鈥?6. CrossRef
    108. Trninic, D., Guti茅rrez, J. F., & Abrahamson, D. (in press). Virtual mathematical inquiry: problem solving at the gestural鈥搒ymbolic interface of remote-control embodied-interaction design. In G. Stahl, H. Spada, & N. Miyake (Eds.), / Proceedings of the ninth international conference on computer- / supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2011) [Vol. (Full paper)]. Hong Kong, July 4鈥?, 2011.
    109. Trninic, D., Guti茅rrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). / Generative immersion and immersive generativity in instructional design. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG research in mathematics education). New Orleans, LA, April 8鈥?2, 2011.
    110. Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). Design as an object-to-think-with: Semiotic potential emerges through collaborative reflective conversation with material. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), / Proceedings of the thirty- / second annual meeting of the North- / American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME- / NA 32) (Vol. VI, Chap. 18: technology, pp. 1523鈥?530). Columbus, OH: PME-NA. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/DAbrahamson/publications/TrninicReinholzHowisonAbrahamson-PMENA2010.pdf.
    111. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 54(1), 9鈥?5. CrossRef
    112. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), / Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 127鈥?74). New York: Academic Press.
    113. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. In T. Nunes (Ed.), / Giving meaning to mathematical signs: Psychological, pedagogical and cultural processes. / Human Development [Special Issue], / 52, 83鈥?4.
    114. V茅rillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. / European Journal of Psychology of Education, / 10(1), 77鈥?01. CrossRef
    115. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), / The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163鈥?02). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    116. von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), / Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3鈥?8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    117. von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). / Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations (working group #4). Paper presented at the Seventh international congress on mathematics education (ICME7), Quebec.
    118. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). / Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    119. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky鈥檚 theory. / Human Development, / 22(1), 1鈥?2. CrossRef
    120. White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. / International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, / 13(1), 1鈥?6. CrossRef
    121. White, T., & Pea, R. (in press). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. / Journal of the Learning Sciences.
    122. Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. / Educational Studies in Mathematics, / 33(2), 171鈥?02. CrossRef
    123. Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In J. Clayson & I. Kallas (Eds.), / Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference, Paris.
    124. Xu, F., & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. / Cognition, / 112, 97鈥?04. CrossRef
    125. Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: reasoning about functions of two variables. / Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, / 28(4), 431鈥?66. CrossRef
    126. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. / Cognitive Science, / 18, 87鈥?22. CrossRef
  • 作者单位：Dor Abrahamson (1)
    Dragan Trninic (1)
    Jose F. Guti茅rrez (1)
    Jacob Huth (1)
    Rosa G. Lee (1)

    1. Graduate School of Education, University of California, 4649 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1670, USA
  • ISSN：2211-1670
文摘
Radical constructivists advocate discovery-based pedagogical regimes that enable students to incrementally and continuously adapt their cognitive structures to the instrumented cultural environment. Some sociocultural theorists, however, maintain that learning implies discontinuity in conceptual development, because novices must appropriate expert analyses that are schematically incommensurate with their naive views. Adopting a conciliatory, dialectical perspective, we concur that naive and analytic schemes are operationally distinct and that cultural鈥揾istorical artifacts are instrumental in schematic reconfiguration yet argue that students can be steered to bootstrap this reconfiguration in situ; moreover, students can do so without any direct modeling from persons fluent in the situated use of the artifacts. To support the plausibility of this mediated-discovery hypothesis, we present and analyze vignettes selected from empirical data gathered in a conjecture-driven design-based research study investigating the microgenesis of proportional reasoning through guided engagement in technology-based embodied interaction. 22 Grade 4鈥? students participated in individual or paired semi-structured tutorial clinical interviews, in which they were tasked to remote-control the location of virtual objects on a computer display monitor so as to elicit a target feedback of making the screen green. The screen would be green only when the objects were manipulated on the screen in accord with a 鈥渕ystery鈥?rule. Once the participants had developed and articulated a successful manipulation strategy, we interpolated various symbolic artifacts onto the problem space, such as a Cartesian grid. Participants appropriated the artifacts as strategic or discursive means of accomplishing their goals. Yet, so doing, they found themselves attending to and engaging certain other embedded affordances in these artifacts that they had not initially noticed yet were supporting performance subgoals. Consequently, their operation schemas were surreptitiously modulated or reconfigured鈥攖hey saw the situation anew and, moreover, acknowledged their emergent strategies as enabling advantageous interaction. We propose to characterize this two-step guided re-invention process as: (a) hooking鈥攅ngaging an artifact as an enabling, enactive, enhancing, evaluative, or explanatory means of effecting and elaborating a current strategy; and (b) shifting鈥攖acitly reconfiguring current strategy in response to the hooked artifact鈥檚 emergent affordances that are disclosed only through actively engaging the artifact. Looking closely at two cases and surveying others, we delineate mediated interaction factors enabling or impeding hook-and-shift learning. The apparent cognitive鈥損edagogical utility of these behaviors suggests that this ontological innovation could inform the development of a heuristic design principle for deliberately fostering similar learning experiences.
NGLC 2004-2010.National Geological Library of China All Rights Reserved.
Add:29 Xueyuan Rd,Haidian District,Beijing,PRC. Mail Add: 8324 mailbox 100083
For exchange or info please contact us via email.