The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-24

  Ares, Nancy ^a,c   Stroup, Walter M ^b   Schademan, Alfred R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149234200     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370000802584497     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Brenner, M. E., & Moschkovich, J. (Eds.). (2002). Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, Number 11.
2. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 187-215.
3. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Cole, M., &Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Damazio, A. (2001). Mathematical cognition in the classroom: A cultural-historical approach. In M. Hedegaard (Ed.), Learning in classrooms: A cultural-historical approach (pp. 191-210). Oxford: Aarhus University Press.
6. Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 281-303.
7. Fendel, D., Resek, D., Alper, L., & Fraser, S. (1997). The interactive mathematics program Year 1. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
8. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
9. Geertz, C. (1973). Think description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
10. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1999). Reflective processes in a mathematics classroom with a rich learning environment. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 65-91.
11. Hung, D. W. L. (2001). Conjectured ideas as mediating artifacts for the appropriation of mathematical ideas. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 247-262.
12. Hung, D. W. L. (2002). Metaphorical ideas as mediating artifacts for the social construction of knowledge: Implications from the writings of Dewey and Vygotsky. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 197-214.
13. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14. Kaput, J. J. (1994). Access to calculus: New routes to old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions, and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 256-281.
16. Kaput, J. J., & Hegedus, S. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, UK.
17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting students' ability to reason about data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1-3), 103-129.
19. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 189-212.
21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://my.nctm.org/standards/document.htm.
22. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 85-108.
23. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup, W. M. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson (Ed.), Innovations in science and mathematics (pp. 47-76). Hilllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 8(5), 22-25.
25. Saxe, G. (2002). Children's developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 275-300.
26. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (2001). Production and transformation of computer artifacts toward construction of meaning in mathematics. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(3), 250-267.
27. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
28. Smagorinsky, P. (1995). The social construction of data: Methodological problems of investigating learning in the zone of proximal development. [Electronic version.] Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 191-212.
29. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
30. Stroup, W. M. (2002). Understanding qualitative calculus: A structural synthesis of learning research. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 167-215.
31. Stroup, W. M., Ares, N., & Hurford, A. (2004). A taxonomy of generative activity design supported by next-generation classroom networks. In D. McDougal, & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1401-1410). Toronto, OISE/UT
32. Stroup, W. M., Ares, N., & Hurford, A. (2005). A dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 181-206.
33. Stroup, W. M., Ares, N., & Lesh, R. A. (2007). Diversity by design: The what, why and how of generativity in next-generation classroom networks. In R. A. Lesh, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations of the Future: Twenty-first century models and modeling (pp. 367-394). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Reiber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol. 1 (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum.
35. Wells, G. (2002). Dialogue and activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 43-66.
36. Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. d. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of minds (pp. 56-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL' 99, Stanford University.
38. Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamical phenomena with the HubNet architecture. In B. Fishman, & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 282-289). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.