Abrahamson, D. (2008). The abduction of Peirce: the missing link between perceptual judgment and mathematical reasoning?
Paper presented at the Townsend Working Group in Neuroscience and Philosophy (A. Rokem, J. Stazicker, & A. Noë, Organizers). UC Berkeley. Accessed June 1, 2010 at http://www.archive.org/details/ucb_neurophilosophy_2008_12_09_Dor_Abrahamson
Abrahamson, D. (2009a). A student’s synthesis of tacit and mathematical knowledge as a researcher’s lens on bridging learning theory. In M. Borovcnik & R. Kapadia (Eds.), Research and developments in probability education
[Special Issue]. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
(3), 195–226. Accessed Jan. 191, 2010 at http://www.iejme.com/032009/main.htm
Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Abrahamson, D. (2009c). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning—The case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction,
Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning.
In R. Goldman (Chair), H. Kwah & D. Abrahamson (Organizers), & R. P. Hall (Discussant), Diverse perspectives on embodied learning: what’s so hard to grasp?
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG Advanced Technologies for Learning. New Orleans, LA, April 8–12, 2011, http://edrl.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Abrahamson-etal.AERA2011-EmbLearnSymp.pdf
Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2008). Kinemathics: kinetically induced mathematical learning
. Paper presented at the UC Berkeley Gesture Study Group (E. Sweetser, Director), December 5, 2008. http://edrl.berkeley.edu/projects/kinemathics/Abrahamson-Howison-2008_kinemathics.pdf
Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2010a). Embodied artifacts: Coordinated action as an object
In D. L. Holton (Organizer & Chair) & J. P. Gee (Discussant), Embodied and enactive approaches to instruction: Implications and innovations.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 30–May 4. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/DAbrahamson/publications/Abrahamson-Howison-AERA2010-ReinholzTrninic.pdf
Abrahamson, D., & Howison, M. (2010b). Kinemathics: Exploring kinesthetically induced mathematical learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 30–May 4.
Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (in press). Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In P. Blikstein & P. Marshall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual interaction design and children conference (IDC 2011). Ann Arbor, MI: IDC.
Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. In K. Makar & D. Ben-Zvi (Eds.), The role of context in developing students’ reasoning about informal statistical inference [Special issue]. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1&2), 5–26.
Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. In D. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low income communities (pp. 235–262). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bamberger, J. (2010). Noting time. Min
-Ad: Israel studies in musicology online
(Vol. 8, issue 1&2), Retrieved November 9, 2010 from, http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad/2010/2002-Bamberger-Noting.pdf
Bamberger, J., & Schön, D. A. (1983). Learning as reflective conversation with materials: Notes from work in progress. Art Education, 36(2), 68–73.
Bamberger, J., & Schön, D. A. (1991). Learning as reflective conversation with materials. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 186–209). London: SAGE Publications.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd revised edition ed., pp. 720–749). Mahwah, NG: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1993). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). NYC: Macmillan.
Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H.-J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73–105). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2008). Embodied semiotic activities and their role in the construction of mathematical meaning of motion graphs. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
Brock, W. H., & Price, M. H. (1980). Squared paper in the nineteenth century: Instrument of science and engineering, and symbol of reform in mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development,
Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.
Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist,
Confrey, J. (1998). Building mathematical structure within a conjecture driven teaching experiment on splitting. In S. B. Berenson, K. R. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. N. Coulombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 39–48). Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Confrey, J. (2005). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–151). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (1995). Designing Newton’s laws: patterns of social and representational feedback in a learning task. In R.-J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and interaction: modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 105–122). Berlin: Springer.
diSessa, A. A. (2005). A history of conceptual change research: threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. Cognition and Instruction,
diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction,
diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
diSessa, A. A., Philip, T. M., Saxe, G. B., Cole, M., & Cobb, P. (2010). Dialectical approaches to cognition (Symposium). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 30–May 4.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
Engeström, Y. (2008). From design experiments to formative interventions. In G. Kanselaar, J. V. Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, & T. D. Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 3–24). Utrecht, the Netherlands: ISLS.
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Freudenthal, H. (1986). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2005). Understanding ratio and proportion as an example of the apprehending zone and conceptual-phase problem-solving models. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 213–234). New York: Psychology Press.
Gelman, R. (1998). Domain specificity in cognitive development: Universals and nonuniversals. In M. Sabourin, F. Craik, & M. Robert (Eds.), Advances in psychological science: (Vol. 2 biological and cognitive aspects). Hove, England: Psychology Press Ltd. Publishers.
Gelman, R., & Williams, E. (1998). Enabling constraints for cognitive development and learning: Domain specificity and epigenesis. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Cognition, perception and language (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 575–630). New York: Wiley.
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science,
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind
. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goldin, G. A. (1987). Levels of language in mathematical problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 59–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist,
Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist,
Gutiérrez, J. F., Trninic, D., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). Hooks and shifts in instrumented mathematics learning
. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG learning sciences). New Orleans, LA, April 8–12, 2011. http://www.edrl.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/AERA2011-Hooks-and-Shifts.pdf
Hall, R. (2001). Cultural artifacts, self regulation, and learning: Commentary on Neuman’s “Can the Baron von Munchhausen phenomenon be solved?”. Mind, Culture & Activity,
Halldén, O., Scheja, M., & Haglund, L. (2008). The contextuality of knowledge: An intentional approach to meaning making and conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 509–532). Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Harel, G. (in press). Intellectual need. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research. New York: Springer.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2003). Peirce’s ‘diagrammatic reasoning’ as a solution of the learning paradox. In G. Debrock (Ed.), Process pragmatism: Essays on a quiet philosophical revolution (pp. 121–143). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The mathematical imagery trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg, & D. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of CHI: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2011), Vancouver. May 7–12, 2011 (Vol. “Full Papers”, pp. 1989–1998). ACM: CHI (CD ROM).
Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science,
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind & Language,
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. In A. E. Kelly (Ed.), The role of design in educational research [Special issue]. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.
Kirsh, D. (2006). Distributed cognition: a methodological note. In S. Harnad & I. E. Dror (Eds.), Distributed cognition [Special issue]. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 249–262.
Kuchinsky, S. E., Bock, K., & Irwin, D. E. (2011). Reversing the hands of time: changing the mapping from seeing to saying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Lee, J. C. (2008). Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7
(3), 39–45. http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/
Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: The New American Library.
McNeill, D., & Duncan, S. D. (2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture
(pp. 141–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Meira, L. (2002). Mathematical representations as systems of notations-in-use. In K. Gravenmeijer, R. Lehrer, B. V. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 87–104). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). An unpublished text by Maurice Merleau-Ponty: prospectus of his work (trans: Dallery, A. B.). In J. M. Edie (Ed.), The primacy of perception, and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work 1962).
Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In R. Nemirovsky, M. Borba (Coordinators), Perceptuo-motor activity and imagination in mathematics learning (research forum). In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Twenty seventh annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 105–109). Honolulu, Hawaii: Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Neuman, Y. (2001). Can the Baron von Münchausen phenomenon be solved? An activity-oriented solution to the learning paradox. Mind, Culture & Activity,
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Olive, J. (2000). Computer tools for interactive mathematical activity in the elementary school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. NY: Basic Books.
Petrick, C., & Martin, T. (2011). Hands up, know body move: Learning mathematics through embodied actions. Manuscript in progress.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Pratt, D., & Kapadia, R. (2009). Shaping the experience of young and naive probabilists. Research and developments in probability education [Special Issue]. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education,
Prawat, R. S. (1999). Dewey, Peirce, and the learning paradox. American Educational Research Journal,
Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: Seeing structures in generalizing activities. For the Learning of Mathematics,
Reinholz, D., Trninic, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). It’s not easy being green: embodied artifacts and the guided emergence of mathematical meaning. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-second annual meeting of the North-American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME-NA 32) (Vol. VI, Chap. 18: technology, pp. 1488–1496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.
Roth, W.-M. (2009). Embodied mathematical communication and the visibility of graphical features. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Mathematical representation at the interface of body and culture (pp. 95–121). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. S. (2009). Bodily experience and mathematical conceptions: From classical views to a phenomenological reconceptualization. In L. Radford, L. Edwards, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning [Special issue]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 175–189.
Sáenz-Ludlow, A. (2003). A collective chain of signification in conceptualizing fractions: A case of a fourth-grade class. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 39(4).
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives,
Saxe, G. B. (2004). Practices of quantification from a sociocultural perspective. In K. A. Demetriou & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), Developmental change: Theories, models, and measurement (pp. 241–263). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., Shaughnessy, M., Earnest, D., Cremer, S., Sitabkhan, Y., et al. (2009). A methodological framework and empirical techniques for studying the travel of ideas in classroom communities. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 203–222). Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Making pasta and making mathematics: From cookbook procedures to really cooking. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practice in mathematics and science learning (pp. 299–319). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1991). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design,
Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science,
Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you—Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of Learning Sciences,
Shank, G. (1987). Abductive strategies in educational research. American Journal of Semiotics,
Shank, G. (1998). The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. Theory & Psychology,
Shreyar, S., Zolkower, B., & Pérez, S. (2010). Thinking aloud together: A teacher’s semiotic mediation of a whole-class conversation about percents. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking to speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
Stetsenko, A. (2002). Commentary: Sociocultural activity as a unit of analysis: How Vygotsky and Piaget converge in empirical research on collaborative cognition. In D. J. Bearison & B. Dorval (Eds.), Collaborative cognition: Children negotiating ways of knowing (pp. 123–135). Westport, CN: Ablex Publishing.
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stigler, J. W. (1984). “Mental abacus”: The effect of abacus training on Chinese children’s mental calculation. Cognitive Psychology,
Thagard, P. (2010). How brains make mental models. In L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Abduction, logic, and computational discovery (pp. 447–461). Berlin: Springer.
Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students’ reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., & Abrahamson, D. (in press). Virtual mathematical inquiry: problem solving at the gestural–symbolic interface of remote-control embodied-interaction design. In G. Stahl, H. Spada, & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2011) [Vol. (Full paper)]. Hong Kong, July 4–8, 2011.
Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). Generative immersion and immersive generativity in instructional design. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG research in mathematics education). New Orleans, LA, April 8–12, 2011.
Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). Design as an object-to-think-with: Semiotic potential emerges through collaborative reflective conversation with material. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty
-second annual meeting of the North
-American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME
(Vol. VI, Chap. 18: technology, pp. 1523–1530). Columbus, OH: PME-NA. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/DAbrahamson/publications/TrninicReinholzHowisonAbrahamson-PMENA2010.pdf
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 127–174). New York: Academic Press.
Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. In T. Nunes (Ed.), Giving meaning to mathematical signs: Psychological, pedagogical and cultural processes. Human Development [Special Issue], 52, 83–94.
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations (working group #4). Paper presented at the Seventh international congress on mathematics education (ICME7), Quebec.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development,
White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
White, T., & Pea, R. (in press). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In J. Clayson & I. Kallas (Eds.), Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference, Paris.
Xu, F., & Denison, S. (2009). Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month-old infants. Cognition,
Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: reasoning about functions of two variables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science,