Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 77-103

  DiSessa, Andrea A ^b   Cobb, Paul ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1042291393     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Azevedo, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrains. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 423-480.
3. Azevedo, F. (submitted). Personal excursions: Investigating the dynamics of student engagement.
4. Bowers, J. S., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25-64.
5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
6. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Cadwell, L. B. (2003). Bringing learning to life: The Reggio approach to early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Cobb, P. (2000). The importance of a situated view of learning to the design of research and instruction. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 45-82). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
9. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
10. Cobb, P., & Hodge, L. L. (2003, April). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
11. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Design-Based Research Collaborative (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
14. diSessa, A. A. (1992). Images of learning. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, and L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 19-40). Berlin: Springer.
15. diSessa, A. A., (1995). The many faces of a computational medium. In A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, R. Noss, with L. Edwards (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 337-359). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
16. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Students' criteria for representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105-129). Dortrecht: Kluwer.
17. diSessa, A. A. (in press). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction.
18. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117-160.
19. diSessa, A. A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics & science learning (pp. 155-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105-121.
21. Eisenhart, M. (1991). Conceptual frameworks for research. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, V. 1 (pp. 202-219). Blackburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
22. Elby, A. (2000). What students' learning about representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 481-502.
23. Engestrom, Y. (1998). Reorganizing the motivational sphere of classroom culture: An activity - theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt & U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.
25. Friedman, J. S. (1999). Image processing in a science classroom: The role of students' understanding of the technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education University of California.
26. Friedman, J. S., & diSessa, A. A. (1999). What should students know about technology? The case of scientific visualization. International Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 175-196.
27. Granados, R. (2000). Constructing intersubjectivity in representational design. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 503-530.
28. Gravemeijer, K. (1994a). Educational development and developmental research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443-471.
29. Gravemeijer, K. (1994b). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-β Press.
30. Gruber, H., & Vonèche, J. J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.
31. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1999). The emergent perspective in rich learning environments: Some roles of tools and activities in the construction of sociomathematical norms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 149-166.
32. Labato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
33. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Madanes, R. (1997). Teaching through discussion: Using critical moves and support moves. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
36. McClain, K. (2002). Teacher's and students' understanding: The role of tools and inscriptions in supporting effective communication. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 217-249.
37. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). The development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 234-266.
38. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93-127.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
41. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
43. Papert, S, & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
44. Sfard, A. (2000). On the reform movement and the limits of mathematical discourse. Mathematical thinking and learning, 2, 157-189.
45. Sherin, B. (2000). How students invent representations of motion. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 399-441.
46. Sherin, B., Azevedo, F., & diSessa, A. (in press). Exploration zones: A framework for describing the emergent structure of learning activities. In A. Rosebery, B. Warren, R. Nemirovsky, & J. Solomon (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Simon, M.A. (2000). Research on the development of mathematics teachers: The teacher development experiment. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 335-359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
48. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3-31.
49. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
50. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
51. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education. A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
52. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 279-303.
53. Thompson, A.G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 2-24.
54. Toulmin, S. (1963). Foresight and understanding. New York: Harper Torchbook.
55. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction - The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
56. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London: Routledge.
57. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.