Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on learning: Tensions and synergy in the learning sciences

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 34-43

  Danish, Joshua A ^a   Gresalfi, Melissa ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85048674336     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. (2018). Embodied cognition in learning and teaching: action, observation, and imagination. In F. Fischer, C .E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 75-85). New York: Routledge.
2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11. doi: 10.3102/0013189x025004005
3. Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Planning for teaching statistics through problem solving. In R. Charles & H. L. Schoen (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12 (pp. 105-117). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
4. Case, R. (1996). Changing Views of Knowledge and Their Impact on Educational Research and Practice. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling (pp. 75-99). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
5. Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 1-49. doi: 10.1080/1050 8406.2013.856793
6. Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153-176. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.696438
7. Dingyloudi, F., & Strijbos, J. W.(2018). Mixed methods research as a pragmatic toolkit: Understanding ver-sus fixing complexity in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 444-454). New York: Routledge.
8. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., & Fields, D. (2011). Negotiating the “relevant” in culturally relevant mathematics. Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 11(3), 273-291.
10. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
11. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
12. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., & Sottilare, R. (2018). Intelligent tutoring systems. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 246-255). New York: Routledge.
13. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17. doi: 10.3 102/0013189x026001005
14. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Routledge.
15. Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 128-147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327-369.
17. Gresalfi, M. S., & Barnes, J. (2015). Designing feedback in an immersive videogame: Supporting stu-dent mathematical engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-22. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9411-8
18. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
19. Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
20. Konold, C., & Higgins, T. (2002). Working with data: Highlights of related research. In S. J. Russell, D. Schifter, p; V. Bastable (Eds.), Developing mathematical ideas: Working with data (pp. 165-201). Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour Publications.
21. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465.
22. Lave, J. (1980). What’s special about experiments as contexts for thinking. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2(4), 86-91.
23. Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.
24. Lesh, R. A., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93-118). Reston, VA: Lawrence Erlbaum & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
25. Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and prac-tice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232-247. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.693353
26. Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). The reasoning behind informal statistical inference. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1-2), 152-173.
27. Misailidou, C., & Williams, J. (2003). Children’s proportional reasoning and tendency for an additive strategy: The role of models. Research in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 215-247.
28. Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 234-247. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1075399
29. Reed, S. K. (2012). Learning by mapping across situations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 353-398. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.607007
30. Russ, R. S., Lee, V. R., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education, 96(4), 573-599.
31. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
32. Sherin, M., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. doi: 10.1177/0022487108328155
33. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Technological tools and instructional approaches for making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics educa-tion (pp. 321-359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary educa-tional psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
36. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87.