## Abstract

Design-based research studies are conducted as iterative implementation-analysis-modification cycles, in which emerging theoretical models and pedagogically plausible activities are reciprocally tuned toward each other as a means of investigating conjectures pertaining to mechanisms underlying content teaching and learning. Yet this approach, even when resulting in empirically effective educational products, remains under-conceptualized as long as researchers cannot be explicit about their craft and specifically how data analyses inform design decisions. Consequentially, design decisions may appear arbitrary, design methodology is insufficiently documented for broad dissemination, and design practice is inadequately conversant with learning-sciences perspectives. One reason for this apparent under-theorizing, I propose, is that designers do not have appropriate constructs to formulate and reflect on their own intuitive responses to students’ observed interactions with the media under development. Recent socio-cultural explication of epistemic artifacts as semiotic means for mathematical learners to objectify presymbolic notions (e.g., Radford, Mathematical Thinking and Learning 5(1): 37–70, 2003) may offer design-based researchers intellectual perspectives and analytic tools for theorizing design improvements as responses to participants’ compromised attempts to build and communicate meaning with available media. By explaining these media as potential semiotic means for students to objectify their emerging understandings of mathematical ideas, designers, reciprocally, create semiotic means to objectify their own intuitive design decisions, as they build and improve these media. Examining three case studies of undergraduate students reasoning about a simple probability situation (binomial), I demonstrate how the semiotic approach illuminates the process and content of student reasoning and, so doing, explicates and possibly enhances design-based research methodology.

### Similar content being viewed by others

## Notes

It seems only a matter of difference in discursive norms of two communities of practice – mathematicians, designers – that mathematical problem solving is currently held to higher standards of accountability than design-based problem-solving. Yet in a climate of public accountability, I am concerned, under-conceptualization might lead a designer or reviewer to devalue or even reject a potentially sound decision because it apparently cannot be rationalized.

The ratio of sample size, four marbles, to population, hundreds of marbles, renders the ‘without-returns’ issue negligible.

In expressing their judgments, students alternatively used figures of speech such as ‘more/less likely,’ ‘greater/smaller chance,’ and ‘you’ll get more/less of that.’ Whether students’ judgments could be called ‘intuitive

*probability*’ or ‘intuitive*frequency*’ remains a moot question (Gigerenzer 1998, calls this ‘natural frequency’; Xu and Vashti 2008, call it ‘intuitive statistics’).All ProbLab computer-based simulations are built in

*NetLogo*(Wilensky 1999).This response changes the situation for Rose from one of statistical investigation – attempting to determine the green-to-blue distribution in the marbles “population” – to a probability experiment, where one can apply the Law of Large Numbers and/or compute expected values (see Abrahamson 2006a, on nuanced relations between statistics and probability).

A future study is necessary to determine whether students would use similar gestures for other-than-half-half proportions. Also, if an actual number line, running from 0 to 100, were attached to the rim of the marbles box, students’ spontaneous part–part gesture could index a part-to-whole numerical value, thus bridging from the preverbal to the numerical.

Mark uses the mathematical term ‘expected value,’ yet his explanation does not abide with the formal procedure for determining an expected value but rather it is a qualitative argument for why the mean sample should have 2 green balls and 2 blue balls. (To calculate the expected value, Mark should add up the four independent .5 probabilities of getting green, one for each concavity, to receive the sum of 2 green balls as the expected value of a single scoop.)

Note how the palindrome scale is co-centered with the marbles box. This spatial co-positioning of artifact and gestured construction may appear epiphenomenal to normative bio-mechanics of tool use and, thus, barely pertinent to that which we may wish to call mathematical reasoning. However, a cognitive-ergonomics approach to artifact-based mathematical learning and design should tend to this spatial relationship and monitor its emergent consequences.

At the limit, the histogram signifies both, and explicating this theoretical-empirical homomorph in terms of properties of the random generator – its combinatorics and probabilities – could be regarded as the apex of coordinating theoretical and empirical aspects of the binomial. The Law of Large Numbers predicts that the empirical outcome distribution will converge on the theoretical expectation. After several thousand trials in a simulated marbles-scooping experiment (see Applet 1), the frequency distribution stabilizes at the expected shape.

Searching for a new material anchor that would enable us to run the blend for all

*p*values, I attempted various design variants on the combinations tower, such as a stretchable combinations tower, and I have examined the affordances of different media for implementing this and related design solutions (see ‘Sample Stalagmite,’ Abrahamson 2006c and Applet 2, for another solution, which is only glossed over in this article).I am grateful for the support of a NAE/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship and a UC Berkeley Junior Faculty Research Grant. Thanks to members of EDRL (http://edrl.berkeley.edu/), Eve Sweester’s Gesture Group, and CCL (Uri Wilensky,

*Director*; http://ccl.northwestern.edu/; Paulo Blikstein,*4-Block engineering & production*; Josh Unterman,*NetLogo modeling support*). The paper expands on previous publications (Abrahamson 2007a, b, 2008a). Special thanks to Betina Zolkower, Norma Presmeg, and three anonymous reviewers for very constructive comments.

## References

Abrahamson, D. (2003).

*A situational-representational didactic design for fostering conceptual understanding of mathematical content: The case of ratio and proportion*. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 21–25.Abrahamson, D. (2004a). Embodied spatial articulation: a gesture perspective on student negotiation between kinesthetic schemas and epistemic forms in learning mathematics. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(vol. 2, pp. 791–797). Toronto, Ontario: Preney.Abrahamson, D. (2004b). Keeping meaning in proportion: The multiplication table as a case of pedagogical bridging tools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Abrahamson, D. (2006a). Bottom-up stats: toward an agent-based “unified” probability and statistics. In D. Abrahamson (Org.), U. Wilensky (Chair), and M. Eisenberg (Discussant),

*Small steps for agents… giant steps for students?: Learning with agent-based models*. Paper presented at the Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 7–11.Abrahamson, D. (2006b). Mathematical representations as conceptual composites: Implications for design. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz & A. Méndez (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(vol. 2, pp. 464–466). Mérida, Yucatán, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Abrahamson, D. (2006c). The shape of things to come: the computational pictograph as a bridge from combinatorial space to outcome distribution.

*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning*,*11*(1), 137–146.Abrahamson, D. (2007a).

*From gesture to design: Building cognitively ergonomic learning tools*. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Gesture Studies, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, June 18–21.Abrahamson, D. (2007b). Handling problems: embodied reasoning in situated mathematics. In T. Lamberg, & L. Wiest (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the Twenty Ninth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(pp. 219–226). Stateline (Lake Tahoe), NV: University of Nevada, Reno.Abrahamson, D. (2007c).

*The real world as a trick question: Undergraduate statistics majors’ construction-based modeling of probability*. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 9–13.Abrahamson, D. (2008a). Writes of passage: From phenomenology to semiosis in mathematical learning. In T. Rikakis, & A. Keliiher (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the CreativeIT 2008 workshop – success factors in fostering creativity in IT research and education*. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. http://ame.asu.edu/news/creativeit/.Abrahamson, D. (2008b). Bridging theory: Activities designed to support the grounding of outcome-based combinatorial analysis in event-based intuitive judgment – A case study. In M. Borovcnik & D. Pratt (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME 11)*. Monterrey, Mexico: ICME. http://tsg.icme11.org/tsg/show/14.Abrahamson, D., Bryant, M. J., Howison, M. L., & Relaford-Doyle, J. J. (2008).

*Toward a phenomenology of mathematical artifacts: A circumspective deconstruction of a design for the binomial*. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, New York, March 24–28.Abrahamson, D., & Cendak, R. M. (2006). The odds of understanding the law of large numbers: A design for grounding intuitive probability in combinatorial analysis. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the Thirtieth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(vol. 2, pp. 1–8). Charles University, Prague: PME.Abrahamson, D., & White, T. (2008). Artifacts and aberrations: On the volatility of design research and the serendipity of insight. In G. Kanselaar, J. V. Merriënboer, P. Kirschner & T. D. Jong (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS2008)*. Utrecht, The Netherlands: ICLS. In press.Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2002).

*ProbLab*. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL: The Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Retrieved Jan 1, 2008, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/curriculum/ProbLab/.Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Learning axes and bridging tools in a technology-based design for statistics.

*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning*,*12*(1), 23–55.Alibali, M. W., Bassok, M., Olseth, K. L., Syc, S. E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture.

*Psychological Science*,*10*, 327–333.Alibali, M. W., Flevares, L. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). Assessing knowledge conveyed in gesture: Do teachers have the upper hand?

*Journal of Educational Psychology*,*89*(1), 183–193.Arieti, S. (1976).

*Creativity: The magic synthesis*. New York: Basic Books.Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work.

*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning*,*7*(3), 245–274.Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., & Bazzini, L. (2005). Acting is learning: focus on the construction of mathematical concepts.

*Cambridge Journal of Education*,*35*(1), 55–67.Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: a semiotic analysis of students’ learning about statistical distribution.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*60*(3), 333–358.Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: relating formalisms and contexts.

*Science Education*,*91*, 750–782.Barnes, B., Henry, J., & Bloor, D. (1996).

*Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis*. Chicago: University of Chicago.Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition.

*Annual Review of Psychology*,*59*, 617–645.Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Boni, M. (2003). Instruments for semiotic mediation in primary school classrooms.

*For the Learning of Mathematics*,*23*(2), 12–19.Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (1999). Semiotic mediation: from history to the mathematics classroom.

*For the Learning of Mathematics*,*19*(2), 27–35.Becvar, L. A., Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. (2005). Hands as molecules: Representational gestures used for developing theory in a scientific laboratory.

*Semiotica*,*156*, 89–112.Bloor, D. (1976).

*Knowledge and social imagery*. Chicago, IL: Chicago.Boden, M. A. (1994).

*Dimensions of creativity*. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T..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.Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.

*Journal of the Learning Sciences*,*2*(2), 141–178.Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. In

*Monographs of the society for research in child development: Serial No. 246*(vol. 61). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge.

*Cognition*,*23*, 43–71.Clancey, W. J. (2008). Scientific antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins, & M. Aydede (Eds.),

*Cambridge handbook of situated cognition*. New York: Cambridge University Press, In press.Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995).

*The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.

*Educational Researcher*,*32*(1), 9–13.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*,*28*(1), 25–42.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. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing.

*Cognition and Instruction*,*25*(4), 523–565.diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments.

*The Journal of the Learning Sciences*,*13*(1), 77–103.Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design.

*The Journal of the Learning Sciences*,*11*(1), 105–121.Ernest, P. (1988).

*Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics*. Albany, NY: SUNY.Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002).

*The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities*. New York: Basic Books.Freudenthal, H. (1986).

*Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures*. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Fuson, K. C. (1998). Pedagogical, mathematical, and real-world conceptual-support nets: a model for building children’s multidigit domain knowledge.

*Mathematical Cognition*,*4*(2), 147–186.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.Garfinkel, H. (1967).

*Studies in ethnomethodology*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.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*(Vol. 2, pp. 575–630, 5th ed.). New York: Wiley.Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Ecological intelligence: An adaptation for frequencies. In D. D. Cummins, & C. Allen (Eds.),

*The evolution of mind*(pp. 9–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ginsburg, H. P. (1997).

*Entering the child’s mind*. New York: Cambridge University Press.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: Erlbaum.Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994).

*Developing realistic mathematics education*. Utrecht: CDbeta.Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.

*American Psychologist*,*53*(1), 5–26.Grice, P. (1989).

*Studies in the way of words*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Heidegger, M. (1962).

*Being and time*(J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927).Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds.

*Cognitive Science*,*19*, 265–288.Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends.

*Journal of Pragmatics*,*37*(10), 1555–1577.Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In F. Lester (Ed.),

*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 909–955). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Kelly, A. E. E. (2003). Special issue on the role of design in educational research.

*Educational Researcher*,*32*(1).Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education.

*Mind Culture and Activity*,*5*(1), 25–41.Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain.

*Cognitive Neuropsychology*,*22*(3/4), 333–347.Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.),

*Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science*(pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.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.Merleau-Ponty, M. (1992).

*Phenomenology of perception*(C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge.Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972).

*Human problem solving*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.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.Norman, D. A. (2002).

*The design of everyday things*. New York: Basic Books.Papert, S. (1980).

*Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. NY: Basic Books.Poincaré, J. H. (2003/1897).

*Science and method*(F. Maitland, Trans.). New York: Dover.Polanyi, M. (1967).

*The tacit dimension*. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*,*31*(5), 602–625.Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics: Emergence from psychology. In A. Gutiérrez, & P. Boero (Eds.),

*Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present, and future*(pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense.Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: a semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization.

*Mathematical Thinking and Learning*,*5*(1), 37–70.Radford, L. (2006). Elements of a cultural theory of objectification.

*Revista Latinoamerecana de investigacion en Matematica Eduactiva, Special Issue on Semiotics, Culture and Mathematical Thinking*, 103–129 (H. Empey, Trans.).Roth, W. M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching*,*38*(1), 103–136.Rotman, B. (2000).

*Mathematics as sign: Writing, imagining, counting*. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. E. (2004). Special issue on design-based research methods for studying learning in context.

*Educational Psychologist*,*39*(4).Saxe, G. B. (1981). Body parts as numerals: a developmental analysis of numeration among the Oksapmin in Papua New Guinea.

*Child Development*,*52*(1), 306–331.Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J. M. Atkinson, & E. J. Heritage (Eds.),

*Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis*(pp. 266–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.

*The American Journal of Sociology*,*102*(1), 161–216.Schiphorst, T. (2007). Really, really small: the palpability of the invisible. In G. Fischer, E. Giaccardi, & M. Eisenberg (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the 6th Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer–Human Interaction (ACM: SIGCHI) conference on Creativity & Cognition*(pp. 7–16). Washington, DC: ACM: SIGCHI.Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985).

*Mathematical problem solving*. Orlando, FL: Academic.Schoenfeld, A. H. (2005). On learning environments that foster subject-matter competence. In L. Verschaffel, E. D. Corte, G. Kanselaar, & M. Valcke (Eds.),

*Powerful environments for promoting deep conceptual and strategic learning*(pp. 29–44). Leuven, Belgium: Studia Paedagogica.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. (1981).

*Intuitive thinking? A metaphor underlying some ideas of educational reform (Working Paper 8)*: Division for Study and Research, M.I.T.Schön, D. A. (1990). The design process. In V. A. Howard (Ed.),

*Varieties of thinking*(pp. 110–141). New York: Routledge.Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.

*Research in Engineering Design*,*3*, 131–147.Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: a direct means for studying cognitive development.

*American Psychologist*,*46*(6), 606–620.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.Steiner, G. (2001).

*Grammars of creation*. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.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.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.Suzuki, S., & Cavanagh, P. (1998). A shape-contrast effect for briefly presented stimuli.

*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance*,*24*(5), 1315–1341.Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments.

*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning*,*9*(3), 281–307.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.

*Science*,*185*(4157), 1124–1131.Van Rompay, T., & Hekkert, P. (2001). Embodied design: On the role of bodily experiences in product design. In

*Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design*(pp. 39–46). Singapore.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*,*10*(1), 77–101.von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). Environment and communication. In L. P. Steffe, & T. Wood (Eds.),

*Transforming children’s mathematics education*(pp. 357–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978/1930).

*Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.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*,*13*(1), 1–26.Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*33*(2), 171–202.Wilensky, U. (1999).

*NetLogo*. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL: The Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Retrieved Jan. 1, 2008, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.Xu, F., & Vashti, G. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants.

*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105*(13), 5012–5015. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704450105.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Additional information

### Electronic supplementary material

for this article (doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9137-1) can be found at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Abrahamson, D. Embodied design: constructing means for constructing meaning.
*Educ Stud Math* **70**, 27–47 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9137-1

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9137-1