Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical world with algebra

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 31-74

  Izsák, Andrew ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008785257     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0901_4     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.
2. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Asiala, M., Brown, A., Devries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 6, 1-30.
4. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247-285.
5. Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155-192.
6. Carpenter, T. (1985). Learning to add and subtract: An exercise in problem solving. In E. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multipleresearch perspectives (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando, FL: Academic.
8. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
9. diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
10. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
11. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
12. Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 85-106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
13. Eylon, B., & Linn, M. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301.
14. Flavell, J. (1984). Discussion. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 187-209). New York: Freeman.
15. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M., Markman, A., & Kotovsky, L. (1995). Two forces in the development of relational similarity. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 263-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Greeno, J. (1993). For research to reform education and cognitive science. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.), The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 153-192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. Greeno, J. (1995). Understanding concepts in activity. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 65-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18. Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7, 293-307.
19. Halford, G., Smith, S., Dickson, J., Maybery, M., Kelly, M., Bain, J., & Stewart, J. (1995). Modeling the development of reasoning strategies: The roles of analogy, knowledge, and capacity. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 77-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Hall, R. (1990). Making mathematics on paper: Constructing representations of stories about related linear functions (Tech. Rep. No. 90-17). Irvine: University of California, Irvine.
21. Hall, R., Kibler, D., Wenger, E., & Truxaw, C. (1989). Exploring the episodic structure of algebra story problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 223-283.
22. Hoey, B., & Wootton, K. (Eds.). (1994). College preparatory mathematics: Change from within. Sacramento, CA: CPM Educational Program.
23. Kaput, J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Macmillan.
25. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. (Eds.). (1997). Connected math. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
26. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
29. Lobato, J. (1996). Transfer reconceived: How "sameness" is produced in mathematical activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
30. Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25-50). New York: Academic.
31. McClelland, J. (1995). A connectionist perspective on knowledge and development. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence (pp. 157-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Meira, L. (1991). Explorations of mathematical sense making: An activity-oriented view of children's use and design of material displays. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
33. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121-142.
34. Monk, S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. In A. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 139-168). Washington, DC: American Mathematics Association.
35. Moschkovich, J. (1998). Resources for refining mathematical conceptions: Case studies in learning about linear functions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 209-237.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37. Nemirovsky, R. (1994). On ways of symbolizing: The case of Laura and the velocity sign. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 389-422.
38. Nemirovsky, R. (1996). Mathematical narratives, modeling, and algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 197-220). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
39. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40. Piaget, J., Grize, J., Szeminska, A., & Bang, V. (1977). Epistemology and psychology of functions (F. X. Castellanos & V. D. Anderson, Trans.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. (Original work published 1968)
41. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9, 7-11.
42. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992). Watching Sandy's understanding grow. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 243-257.
43. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165-190.
44. Pirie, S., & Martin, L. (1997). The equation, the whole equation and nothing but the equation! One approach to the teaching of linear equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 159-181.
45. Resnick, L., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
46. Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution - The social rationality of mathematical modeling in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7, 309-327.
47. Saxe, G. B. (1982). Developing forms of arithmetic operations among the Oksapmin of Papua New Guinea. Developmental Psychology, 18, 583-594.
48. Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
49. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
50. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36.
51. Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification: The case of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 59-84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
52. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191-228.
53. Sherin, B. (1996). The symbolic basis of physical intuition: A study of two symbol systems in physics instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
54. Shultz, T., Schmidt, W., Buckingham, D., & Mareschal, D. (1995). Modeling cognitive development with a generative connectionist algorithm. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 205-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
55. Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481-520.
56. Siegler, R. S. (1978). The origins of scientific reasoning. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 109-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
57. Siegler, R. S. (1989). Mechanisms of cognitive development. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 353-379.
58. Siegler, R. S. (1991). Children's thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
59. Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
60. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
61. Siegler, R. S., & Shipley, C. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
62. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 25-58). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
63. Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. London: Falmer.
64. Simon, T., & Halford, G. (1995a). Computational models and cognitive change. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
65. Simon, T., & Halford, G. (Eds). (1995b). Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
66. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
67. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development. New York: Freeman.
68. VanLehn, K. (1982). Bugs are not enough: Empirical studies of bugs, impasses and repairs in procedural skill. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3, 3-71.
69. VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Wyndhamn, J., & Säljö, R. (1997). Word problems and mathematical reasoning - A study of children's mastery of reference and meaning in textual realities. Learning and Instruction, 7, 361-382.
71. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179-217.
72. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.