Rethinking Formalisms in Formal Education

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 125-148

  Nathan, Mitchell J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860201111     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.667063     Document Type: Article

References (163)

1. Abrahamson, D. 2009. Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning-The case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27: 175-224.
2. Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D. and Trninic, D. 2011, April. From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning, New Orleans, LA: Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG Advanced Technologies for Learning.
3. Ahlfors, L. V. 1962. On the mathematics curriculum of the high school. American Mathematical Monthly, 69: 189-193.
4. Alibali, M. W. and Nathan, M. J. in press. Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners' and teachers' gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.611446
5. Ambrose, S. A. and Amon, C. A. 1997. Systematic design of a first-year mechanical engineering course at Carnegie Mellon University. Journal of Engineering Education, 86: 173-181.
6. Anderson, L. M., Blumenfeld, P., Pintrich, P. R., Clark, C. M., Marx, C. M. and Peterson, P. 1995. Educational psychology for teachers: Reforming our courses, rethinking our roles. Educational Psychologist, 30: 143-157.
7. Badets, A. and Pesenti, M. 2010. Creating number semantics through finger movement perception. Cognition, 115(1): 46-53.
8. Baird, D. 2004. Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments, Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Barab, S. A. and Roth, W. M. 2006. Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing form an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5): 3-13.
10. Barnes, B. 1982. The science-technology relationship: A model and a query. Social Studies of Science, 12: 166-172.
11. Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 617-645.
12. Beach, K. 1993. Becoming a bartender: The role of external memory cues in a work-directed educational activity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7: 191-204.
13. Benner, P. E. 1984. From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice, Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
14. Benner, P. E., Tanner, C. A. and Chelsea, C. A. 2009. Expertise in nursing practice: Caring, clinical judgment, and ethics, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Springer.
15. Berliner, D. 1992. Telling the stories of educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 27: 143-161.
16. Bloomfield, L. 2004. How things work: the physics of everyday life, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Wiley. (Original work published 1998).
17. Bond-Robinson, J. 2002, July. Short-circuiting conceptual understanding: Impact of expert blind spot in chemical education, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Paper presented at the 17th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education
18. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. and Cocking, R. R. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Bransford, J. D. and Schwartz, D. L. 1999. "Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications". In Review of research in education, Edited by: Iran-Nejad, A. and Pearson, P. D. Vol. 24, 61-101. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
20. Bruner, J. 1960. The process of education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Cajas, F. 1998. Introducing technology in science education: The case of Guatemala. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 18: 194-203.
22. Cajas, F. 2001. The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38: 715-729.
23. Carpenter, T. P. and Moser, J. M. 1983. "The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts". In The acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes, Edited by: Lesh, R. and Landau, M. 7-44. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
24. Cartwright, N. 1999. The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Case, R. 1991. The mind's staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children's thought and knowledge, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Case, R. and Okamoto, Y. 2000. The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought, New York, NY: Blackwell Publishers.
27. Cheng, P. W. and Holyoak, K. 1985. Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17: 391-416.
28. Chiu, M. M. 2000. Metaphorical reasoning: Origins, uses, development and interactions in mathematics. Education Journal, 28(1): 13-46.
29. Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and Wood, T. 1992. A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1): 2-33.
30. Cole, D. 2004. "The Chinese Room argument". In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Edited by: Zolta, E. N. Retrieved fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room
31. De Bock, D., Deprez, J., Van Dooren, W., Roelens, M. and Verschaffel, L. 2011. Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler's study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 42: 109-126.
32. Dehaene, S. 2011. The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S. and Giraux, P. 1993. The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122: 371-396.
34. DeLoache, J. S. 1995. Early understanding and use of symbols: The model model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4: 109-113.
35. DeLoache, J. S. 2000. Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71: 329-338.
36. diSessa, A. A. 2004. Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22: 293-331.
37. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. 2003. Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13: 533-568.
38. Dotov, D. G., Nie, L. and Chemero, A. 2010. A demonstration of the transition from ready-to-hand to unready-to-hand. PLoS ONE, 5: e9433 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009433.
39. Dreyfus, H. L. 1991. Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Einstein, A. 1916. Relativity: The special and general theory, New York, NY: Bonanza Books.
41. Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J. 1991. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42. Fayol, M., Barrouillet, P. and Marinthe, C. 1998. Predicting arithmetical achievement from neuropsychological performance: A longitudinal study. Cognition, 68: B63-B70.
43. Feynman, R. P. 1965. New textbooks for the "new" mathematics. Engineering and Science, 28: 9-15.
44. Fischer, M. H. 2004. Spatial representation in number processing-Evidence from a pointing task. Visual Cognition, 10: 493-508.
45. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D. and Pratt, J. 2003. Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6: 555-556.
46. Galison, P. L. 2003. Einstein's clocks, Poincare's maps: Empires of time, New York, NY: Norton.
47. Gee, J. P. 2004. Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling, New York, NY: Routledge.
48. Giancoli, D. 2004. Physics: Principles with applications, 6th ed., New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
49. Glaser, R. 1990. The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45: 29-39.
50. Glenberg, A. 1997. What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20: 1-55.
51. Glenberg, A. 1999. "Why mental models must be embodied". In Mental Models in Discourse Processing and Reasoning, Edited by: Rickheit, G. and Habel, C. New York, NY: Elsevier.
52. Goebel, S., Walsh, V. and Rushworth, M. 2001. The mental number line and the human angular gyrus. NeuroImage, 14: 1278-1289.
53. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. and Son, J. Y. 2008. "A well grounded education: The role of perception in science and mathematics". In Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, Edited by: De Vega, M., Glenberg, A. and Graesser, A. 327-355. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54. Goldstone, R. L. and Son, J. Y. 2005. The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14: 69-110.
55. Gordon, D. R. 1984. "Research application: Identifying the use and misuse of formal models in nursing practice". In From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice, Edited by: Benner, P. 225-243. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
56. Griffin, S. A., Case, R. and Siegler, R. S. 1994. "Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at-risk for school failure". In Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice, Edited by: McGilly, K. 24-49. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
57. Grossman, P. 1989. Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91: 191-208.
58. Grossman, P. 1990. The making of a teacher, New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
59. Guzdial, M., Ludovice, P., Realff, M., Morley, T., Carroll, K. and Ladak, A. 2001. The challenge of collaborative learning in engineering and math. Proceedings-Frontiers in Education Conference, 1 T3B/24-T3B/29
60. Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42: 335-346.
61. Heckler, A. F. 2010. Some consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 32: 1829-1851.
62. Hennessy, S., McCormick, R. and Murphy, P. 1993. The myth of general problem-solving capability: Design and technology as an example. The Curriculum Journal, 4: 74-89.
63. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. and Chinn, C. A. 2007. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42: 99-107.
64. Hosking, W. E. 1992. Kites in the classroom, Rev. ed., Rockville, MD: American Kitefliers Association.
65. Huntley, M. 2008. A framework for analyzing differences across mathematics curricula. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 10: 49-54.
66. Jacob, B. 2001. Implementing standards: The California mathematics textbook debacle. Phi Delta Kappan, 83: 264-272.
67. Johnson, M. L. 1999. "Embodied reason". In Perspectives on embodiment, Edited by: Weiss, G. and Haber, H. F. 81-102. New York, NY: Routledge.
68. Jones, M. G. 2009. Transfer, abstraction, and context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40: 80-89.
69. Judd, C. H. 1908. The relation of special training to general intelligence. Educational Review, 36: 28-42.
70. Kalchman, M. and Case, R. 1998. Teaching mathematical functions in primary and middle school: An approach based on neo-Piagetian theory. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 35: 7-54.
71. Kalchman, M., Moss, J. and Case, R. 2001. "Psychological models for the development of understanding: Rational numbers and functions". In Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress, Edited by: Carver, S. M. and Klahr, D. 1-38. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Kalchman, M. and Nathan, M. J. 2001. "Cognitive theories of development and instruction: Algebraic reasoning in the middle grades". In Proceeding of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, Edited by: Chen, L. 622-626. Beijing, China: USTC Press.
73. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M. and Heckler, A. F. 2008. The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320: 454-455.
74. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M. and Heckler, A. F. 2009a. Concrete instantiations of mathematics: A double-edged sword. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40: 90-93.
75. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M and Heckler, A. F. 2009b. The devil is in the superficial details: Why generic instantiations promote portable mathematical knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 3: 151-155.
76. Kirshner, D. 1989. The visual syntax of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20: 274-287.
77. Klein, D. 2003. "A brief history of American K-12 mathematics education in the 20th century". In Mathematical cognition: A volume in current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction, Edited by: Royer, J. 175-225. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
78. Kline, M. 1973. Why Johnny can't add: The failure of the new math, New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
79. Klingbeil, N. W., Mercer, R. E., Rattan, K. S., Raymer, M. L. and Reynolds, D. B. 2004. Rethinking engineering mathematics education: a model for increased retention, motivation and success in engineering. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education, (pp. 12169-12180). Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education.
80. Knuth, E., Alibali, M., McNeil, N., Weinberg, A. and Stephens, A. 2005. Middle school students' understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equality & variable. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37: 68-76.
81. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. and Nathan, M. J. 2008. Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32: 366-397.
82. Koedinger, K. R. and Anderson, J. R. 1998. Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5: 161-180.
83. Koedinger, K. R. and Nathan, M. J. 2004. The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13: 129-164.
84. Küchemann, D. 1978. Children's understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7: 23-26.
85. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
86. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought, New York, NY: Basic Books.
87. Lakoff, G. and Nunez, R. 2000. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, New York, NY: Basic Books.
88. Landy, D. and Goldstone, R. L. 2007. How abstract is symbolic thought?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33: 720-733.
89. Landy, D. and Goldstone, R. L. 2010. Proximity and precedence in arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63: 1953-1968.
90. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
91. Latour, B. 1990. "Drawing things together". In Representation in scientific practice, Edited by: Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. 19-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
92. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
93. Laurillard, D. 2001. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Routledge.
94. Lesh, R. and Doerr, H. M. 2003. Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
95. Ma, L. 1999. Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
96. Madison Metropolitan School District. 2009. Madison Metropolitan School District Mathematics Task Force report: Review of mathematics curriculum and related issues, Edited by: Lewis, J. and Price, M. Madison, WI: Author.
97. Martin, T. 2009. A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3: 140-144.
98. Martin, T. and Schwartz, D. L. 2005. Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29: 587-625.
99. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S. and Soloway, E. 1997. Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97: 341-358.
100. McKenna, A., McMartin, F. and Agogino, A. 2000. What students say about learning physics, math and engineering. Proceedings-Frontiers in Education Conference, 1: T1F-9.
101. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C. and Louwerse, M. M. 2012. "Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres". In Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences, Edited by: Sabatini, J. P. and Albro, E. 89-116. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
102. McNeil, N., Weinberg, A., Stephens, A., Hattikudur, S., Asquith, P., Knuth, E. and Alibali, M. 2010. A is for apple: Mnemonic symbols hinder students' interpretation of algebraic expressions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102: 625-634. doi:10.1037/a0019105
103. Meli, D. B. 2006. Thinking with objects: The transformation of mechanics in the seventeenth century., Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
104. Meltzer, D. E. 2005. Relation between students problem-solving performance and representational mode. American Journal of Physics, 70: 1259-1268. 73, 463-478
105. Miller, A. I. 1981. Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905-1911), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
106. Nathan, M. J. 1998. The impact of theories of learning on learning environment design. Interactive Learning Environments, 5: 135-160.
107. Nathan, M. J. 2003, June. Technology's other role in SMET education: How technology design and use can support science and mathematics education (and why we tend to dismiss such approaches) Talk given to the Learning Sciences Colloquium Series, Northwestern University.
108. Nathan, M. J. 2008. "An embodied cognition perspective on symbols, grounding, and instructional gesture". In Symbols, embodiment and meaning: A debate, Edited by: DeVega, M., Glenberg, A. M. and Graesser, A. C. 375-396. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
109. Nathan, M. J. and Alibali, M. W. 2010. Learning sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science, 1: 329-345. doi:10.1002/wcs.54
110. Nathan, M. J., Alibali, M. W., Wolfgram, M., Srisuruchan, R. and Walkington, C. 2011, May. Threading mathematics through symbols, pixels, sketches and wood: Tailoring high school STEM instruction to build cohesion across modal engagements, Chicago, IL: Northwestern University. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Berkeley, CA, and invited talk to the School of Education and Social Policy
111. Nathan, M. J. and Kim, S. 2007. Pattern generalization with graphs and words: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of middle school students' representational fluency. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9: 193-219.
112. Nathan, M. J. and Koedinger, K. R. 2000a. An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18: 207-235.
113. Nathan, M. J. and Koedinger, K. R. 2000b. Moving beyond teachers' intuitive beliefs about algebra learning. Mathematics Teacher, 93: 218-223.
114. Nathan, M. J. and Koedinger, K. R. 2000c. Teachers' and researchers' beliefs about the development of algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31: 168-190.
115. Nathan, M. J., Long, S. D. and Alibali, M. W. 2002. The symbol precedence view of mathematical development: A corpus analysis of the rhetorical structure of algebra textbooks. Discourse Processes, 33(1): 1-21.
116. Nathan, M. J. and Petrosino, A. J. 2003. Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40: 905-928.
117. Nathan, M. J., Stephens, A. C., Masarik, D. K., Alibali, M. W. and Koedinger, K. R. 2002, October. "Representational fluency in middle school: A classroom based study". In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Edited by: Mewborn, D., Sztajn, P., White, D., Wiegel, H., Bryant, R. and Nooney, K. 463-472. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
118. National Academy of Engineering. 2005. Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
119. National Academy of Engineering. 2010. Standards for K-12 engineering education?, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
120. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1970a. A history of mathematics education in the United States and Canada (32nd yearbook), Washington, DC: Author.
121. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1970b. "Second report of the Commission on Post War Plans". In Reading in the history of mathematics education, Edited by: Bidwell, J. K. and Clason, R. G. 618-654. Washington, DC: Author. (Original work published 1945)
122. National Research Council. 2005. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
123. Palmer, S. E. 1978. "Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation". In Cognition and categorization, Edited by: Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. 259-303. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
124. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Bruening, P. S. and Duffin, L. C. 2011. The role of educational psychology in teacher education: Three challenges for educational psychologists. Educational Psychologist, 46: 71-83.
125. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. and Glaser, R., eds. 2001. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment., Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
126. Petrosino, A. J. and Gordon, J. 2011, April. Algebra expert blind spot: A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers New Orleans, LA Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
127. Plato. 1992. The republic-Book VII, London, UK: Hackett.
128. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66: 211-227.
129. Prevost, A., Nathan, M. J., Stein, B., Tran, N. and Phelps, L. A. 2009. "Integration of mathematics in pre-college engineering: The search for explicit connections". In Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education, 1-27. Austin, TX: ASEE Publications. (Paper No. AC 2009-1790)
130. Public Law 105-332. 1998. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cccs.edu/Docs/SBCCOE/PerkinsAct1998.pdf
131. Resnick, L. B. 1987. Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16: 13-20.
132. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R. and Silverman, B. 1996. Programmable bricks: Toys to think with Retrieved fromhttp://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/353/sectionc/martin.html
133. Romberg, T. A. 2001. "Designing middle school mathematics materials using problems created to help students progress from informal to formal mathematical reasoning". In Mathematics in the middle, Edited by: Leutzinger, L. P. and Smith, S. P. 107-119. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
134. Romberg, T. A. and Shafer, M. C. 2008. The impact of reform instruction on student mathematics achievement: An example of a summative evaluation of a standards-based curriculum, New York, NY: Routledge.
135. Rose, M. 2004. The mind at work, New York, NY: Viking.
136. Roth, W. M. and Roychoudhury, A. 1993. The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30: 127-152.
137. Schmidt, H. G., Van Der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W. R. and Wijnen, W. H. F. W. 2009. Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44: 227-249.
138. Schwartz, D. L. and Bransford, J. D. 1998. A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16: 475-522.
139. Schwartz, D. L. and Martin, T. 2004. Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22: 129-184.
140. Scribner, S. 1984. "Studying working intelligence". In Everyday cognition, Edited by: Rogoff, B. and Lave, J. 9-40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
141. Searle, J. 1980. Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1: 417-424.
142. Searle, J. 1990. Is the brain's mind a computer program?. Scientific American, 262: 26-31.
143. Sheppard, S. D. 2001. The compatibility (or incompatibility) of how we teach engineering design and analysis. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17: 440-445.
144. Sheppard, S. D. and Jenison, R. 1997a. Examples of freshman design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13: 248-261.
145. Sheppard, S. D. and Jenison, R. 1997b. Freshmen engineering design experiences: an organizational framework. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13: 190-197.
146. Sherin, B. 2001. How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19: 479-541.
147. Sherman, M. 2010. Symbol precedence view in algebra curricula Manuscript in preparation
148. Siegler, R. S. and Ramani, G. B. 2009. Playing linear number board games-but not circular ones-improves low-income preschoolers' numerical understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101: 545-560.
149. Simon, H. A. 1996. Sciences of the artificial, 3rd ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1969).
150. Son, J. Y. and Goldstone, R. L. 2009. Fostering general transfer with specific simulations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17: 1-42.
151. Stachel, J. 1982. Einstein and Michelson-The context of discovery and the context of justification. Astronomische Nachrichten, 303: 47-53.
152. Stevens, R., O'Connor, K. and Garrison, L. 2005. "Engineering student identities in the navigation of the undergraduate curriculum". In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education.
153. Stokes, D. E. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
154. Symonds, W., Schwartz, R. and Ferguson, R. 2011, February. Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young americans for the 21st century, Cambridge, MA: Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard School of Education.
155. Tabachneck, H. J. M. 1992. Computational differences in mental representations: Effects of mode of data presentation on reasoning and understanding, Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
156. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M. and Simon, H. A. 1994. "How does an expert use a graph? A model of visual and verbal inferencing in economics". In Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 842-847). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
157. Tabachneck, H. T., Koedinger, K. and Nathan, M. J. 1995. "A cognitive analysis of the task demands of early algebra". In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 397-402. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
158. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L. and DeLoache, J. S. 1999. "Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations?". In Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues, Edited by: Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. 177-192. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
159. Uttal, D., O'Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L. and DeLoache, J. 2009. Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3: 156-159.
160. VanLehn, K. 1990. Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
161. Weinberg, A. 2004. "A Semiotic framework for variables". In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 285-289. Toronto, Canada: OISE/University of Toronto.
162. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R. and Heck, D. J. 2003. Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
163. Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A. and Ford, L. 2007. University physics with modern physics, 12th ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.