Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 427-466

  Enyedy, Noel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30544448157     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci2304_1     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Transitions in learning: What the hands reveal about a child's state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 468-523.
2. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 1-46.
3. Azevedo, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443-480.
4. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition & Instruction, 17, 25-64.
5. Crowder, E. (1996). Gestures at work in sense-making science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 173-208.
6. Crowder, E., & Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gesture and language in children's science explanations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 1, 341-376.
7. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331.
8. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
9. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385-398.
10. Elby, A. (2000). What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481-502.
11. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
12. 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, 361-408.
13. Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M., & Brown, C. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527-548.
14. Gauvain, M. (1998). Sociocultural and practical influences on spatial memory. In M. J. Intons-Adis & D. L. Best (Eds.), Memory distortions and their prevention (pp. 89-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
16. Goffman, E. (1974). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In B. G. Blount (Ed.), Language, culture and society: A book of readings (pp. 224-249). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
17. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 419-429.
18. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2001). Giving the mind a hand. In J. McClelland & R. Siegler (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Goldin-Meadow, S., Wein, D., & Chang, C. (1992). Assessing knowledge through gesture: Using children's hands to read their minds. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 201-219.
20. Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237-274.
21. Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing, visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157-187). London: Sage.
22. Goodwin, C. (2003a). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Goodwin, C. (2003b). The semiotic body in its environment. In J. Coupland & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourses of the body (pp. 19-42). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
24. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
25. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (2002). Producing sense with nonsense syllables: Turn and sequence in the conversations of a man with severe aphasia. In B. Fox, C. Ford, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 56-80). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26. Granados, R. (2000). Constructing intersubjectivity in representational design activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 503-530.
27. Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Communicating and symbolizing in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225-274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. Gutierrez, K., & Stone, L. (2002). Hypermediating literacy activity: How learning contexts get reorganized. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Literacy in early childhood education: Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education (pp. 25-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
29. Hadar, U., & Butterworth B. (1997). Iconic gestures, imagery, and word retrieval in speech. Semiotica, 115(1&2), 147-172.
30. Hall, R. (2001). Schedules of practical work for the analysis of case studies of learning and development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 203-222.
31. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118-145). London: Blackwell.
32. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. London: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kendon, A. (1996). Reflections on the study of gesture. Visual Anthropology, 8, 121-131.
34. Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 249-282.
35. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
37. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
38. Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding metaphors and inscriptional resonance: Children's emerging understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 359-398.
39. Liben, L. S., & Downs, R. M. (1989). Understanding maps as symbols: The development of map concepts in children. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 22, 145-201.
40. Nemirovsky, R., & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogeneous spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1-3), 67-102.
41. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child's conception of geometry. New York: Basic Books.
43. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71, 365-392.
44. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a Grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition & Instruction, 13, 73-128.
45. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). When up is down and down is up: Body orientation, proximity and gestures as resources for listeners. Language in Society, 31, 1-28.
46. Saxe, G., & Esmonde, I. (in press). Studying cognition in flux: A historical treatment of 'Fu' in the shifting structure of Oksapmin mathematics. Mind, Culture, and Activity.
47. Schofield, N., & Kirby, J. (1994). Position location on topographical maps: Effects of task factors, training, and strategies. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 35-60.
48. Sherin, B. L. (2000). How students invent representations of motion a genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 399-441.
49. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
50. Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children's mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25, 733-773.
51. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 51-84). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
52. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.