SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Azevedo, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443480.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797817.
  • Callaghan, T. C. (1999). Early understanding and production of graphic symbols. Child Development, 70(6), 13141324.
  • Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113163.
  • Cox, M. V. (1992). Children's drawings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • DeLoache, J. S., & Burns, N. M. (1994). Early understanding of the representational function of pictures. Cognition, 2(52), 83110.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293331.
  • diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117160.
  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385398.
  • Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  • Engestrom, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  • Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.Engeström, R.Miettinen, & R.-L.Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1338) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361408.
  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427466.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606633.
  • Greeno, J. G. (1987). Instructional representations based on research about understanding. In A.Shoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 6188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361367.
  • Gutierrez, K. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities. Human Development, 45(4), 312321.
  • Hall, R. (1996). Representation as shared activity: Situated cognition and Dewey's cartography of experience. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 209238.
  • Hall, R. (2001). Schedules of practical work for the analysis of case studies of learning and development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 203222.
  • Hall, R., & Rubin, A. (1998). There's five little notches in here: Dilemmas in teaching and learning the conventional structure of rate. In J. G.Greeno & S. V.Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 189236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235266.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247298.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127138.
  • Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In S.Chaiklin & J.Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3563). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kaput, J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. V.Glasersfeld (Ed.), Constructivism and mathematics education (pp. 5374). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard—Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 248294.
  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 6599.
  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1988). Drawing things together. In M.Lynch & S.Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 1968). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K.Gravemeijer, R.Lehrer, B. V.Oers, & L.Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 5986). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding metaphors and inscriptional resonance: Children's emerging understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3), 359398.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11, 201234.
  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M.Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human–computer interface (pp ix, 333). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151171.
  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966/1978). Mental imagery in the child. London: Routledge.
  • Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4–5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 179220.
  • Roth, W.-M. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, (81), 91106.
  • Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 3559.
  • 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. 107149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Suthers, D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T.Koschmann, D.Suthers, & T. W.Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 662671). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental-trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 515557.
  • White, B. Y. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science education? In R.Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 177252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wilenksy, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 319.