A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 221-262

  Ellis, Amy B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250008769     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400701193705     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637.
2. Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. Review of Research in Education, 28, 46-69.
3. Bernard, H. E. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.
6. Campione, J. C., Shapiro, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Forms of transfer in a community of learners: Flexible learning and understanding. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 35-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Carpenter, T., & Franke, M. (2001). Developing algebraic reasoning in the elementary school: Generalization and proof. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference: The Future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp. 155-162). Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne.
8. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 1-24.
9. Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 258-277.
10. Davydov, D. D. (1990). Soviet studies in mathematics education: Vol. 2. Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
11. Detterman, D. (1993). The Case for the Prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
13. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95-123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. English, L., & Warren, E. (1995). General reasoning processes and elementary algebraic understanding: Implications for instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(4), 1-19.
16. Gagné, Robert M. (1977). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17. Garcia-Cruz, J., & Martinon, A. (1997). Actions and invariant in schemata in linear generalizing problems. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 289-296). Lahti, Finland: PME.
18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
19. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
20. Gruber, H., Law, L., Mandl, H., & Renkl, A., (1996). Situated learning and transfer. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 168-188). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
21. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A Model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory (pp. 185-212). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Harel, G., & Tall, D. (1991). The general, the abstract, and the generic. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11, 38-42.
23. Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding. In E. Fennema, & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133-155). Mahwah, 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. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Lannin, J. K. (2003). Developing algebraic reasoning through generalization. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8(7), 342.
27. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. (1998). Connected mathematics project. Ann Arbor, MI: Dale Seymour Publications.
28. Larson, R., Boswell, L., Kanold, T., & Stiff, L. (2001). Algebra I. Evanston, IL: McDougal Little.
29. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Lee, L. (1996). An initiation into algebraic culture through generalization activities. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra (pp. 87-106). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20.
32. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4).
33. Lobato, J. (in press-a). How rethinking assumptions about the "transfer" of learning can inform research, instructional practices, and assessment. In C. Rasmussen & M. Carlson (Eds.), Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
34. Lobato, J. (in press-b). Research methods for alternative approaches to transfer: Implications for design experiments In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Design Research in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35. Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 36(2), 101-136.
36. Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(1), 87-116.
37. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2000). Using technology to promote and examine students' construction of ratio-as-measure. In M. L. Fernández (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 371-377). Columbus, OH: Educational Resources Information Center.
38. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2002). Developing understanding of ratio and measure as a foundation for slope. In B. Litwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 yearbook (pp. 162-175). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
39. Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4).
40. Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1994). Students' perception and use of pattern and generalization. In J. P. da Ponto & J. F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 407-414). Lisbon, Portugal: PME Program Committee.
41. Pea, R. (1989). Socializing the knowledge transfer problems (Report No. IRL89-0009). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.
42. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.
43. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context Bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
44. Piaget, J., & Henriques, G. (1978). Recherches sur la généralisation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
45. Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between problem states. Cognitive Psychology 6, 436-450.
46. Roschelle, J., & Kaput, J. J. (1996). SimCalc Mathworlds for the Mathematics of Change. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 97-99.
47. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. MA: Cambridge University Press.
48. Sloane, F., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of Design Experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29-31.
49. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147-164.
50. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Building foundations for algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2(4), 253-260.
51. Strauss, A., & Corbin, C. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181-234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
53. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
54. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Bristol, PA: Falmer.