# Fostering Hooks and Shifts: Tutorial Tactics for Guided Mathematical Discovery

- 428 Downloads
- 14 Citations

## Abstract

How do instructors guide students to discover mathematical content? Are current explanatory models of pedagogical practice suitable to capture pragmatic essentials of discovery-based instruction? We examined videographed data from the implementation of a natural user interface design for proportions, so as to determine one constructivist tutor’s methodology for fostering expert visualization of learning materials. Our analysis applied professional-perception cognitive–anthropological frameworks. However, several types of tutorial tactics we observed appeared to “fall between the cracks” of these frameworks, due to the discovery-based, physical, and semantically complex nature of our design. We tabulate and exemplify an expanded framework that accommodates the observed tactics. The study complements our earlier focus on students’ agency in discovery (in Abrahamson et al., Technol Knowl Learn 16(1):55–85, 2011) by offering an empirically validated resource for researchers, instructors, and professional developers interested in preparing future teaching for future technology.

## Keywords

Cognition Design-based research Discovery Education Embodied interaction Guided reinvention Insight Mathematics education Natural user interface (NUI) Proportion Proportional reasoning Remote control Semiotic-cultural Sociocultural Symbolic artifact Teaching Technology Virtual object## Notes

### Acknowledgments

This manuscript builds on the authors’ AERA 2012 paper. The research reported here was supported by a University of California at Berkeley Committee on Research Faculty Research Grant (Abrahamson) and an Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education predoctoral training grant R305B090026 (Gutiérrez, Charoenying). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. We wish to thank Lucie Vosicka and Brian Waismeyer for ongoing conversations and for their formative comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to the journal Editor in Charge Richard Noss as well as anonymous TKL reviewers for their very constructive tutorial tactics.

## References

- Abrahamson, D. (submitted). Toward a taxonomy of design genres: Fostering students’ mathematical insight via perception-based and action-based experiences.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2009a). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70*(1), 27–47. Electronic supplementary material at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/. - Abrahamson, D. (2009b). 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*(3), 175–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (submitted). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. In F. Rivera, H. Steinbring, & A. Arcavi (Eds.),
*Visualization as an epistemological learning tool [Special issue]*. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). 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)*(Vol. “Full papers”, pp. 1–10). Ann Arbor, MI: IDC.Google Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery.
*Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,**16*(1), 55–85.Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Alač, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice.
*Journal of Cognition and Culture,**4*(3), 629–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. In Ramduny-Ellis, D., Dix, A. J., Gill, S., & Hare, J. (Eds.),
*Physicality and interaction*[Special issue].*Interacting with Computers, 21*(1&2), 66–75.Google Scholar - Artigue, M., Cerulli, M., Haspekian, M., & Maracci, M. (2009). Connecting and integrating theoretical frames: The TELMA contribution. In M. Artigue (Ed.),
*Connecting approaches to technology enhanced learning in mathematics: The TELMA experience [Special issue]*.*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14*, 217–240.Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?
*Journal of Teacher Education,**59*(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future.
*Topics in Cognitive Science,**2*(4), 716–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bateson, G. (1972).
*Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself*. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar - Bautista, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2012). The incarnate rhythm of geometrical knowing.
*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,**31*(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - 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: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- 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,**13*(2), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brousseau, G. (1997).
*Theory of didactical situations in mathematics*(N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield, Trans.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry.
*Educational Psychologist,**28*(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Diénès, Z. P. (1971). An example of the passage from the concrete to the manipulation of formal systems.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**3*(3/4), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - diSessa, A. A. (2000).
*Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar - diSessa, A. A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing.
*Cognition and Instruction,**25*(4), 523–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dourish, P. (2001).
*Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Drijvers, P., Godino, J., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (in press). One episode, two lenses.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9416-8. - Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),
*The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences*(pp. 335–354). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Fischer, U., Moeller, K., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2011). Sensori-motor spatial training of number magnitude representation.
*Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,**18*(1), 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Foster, C. (2011). Productive ambiguity in the learning of mathematics.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**31*(2), 3–7.Google Scholar - Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**3*(3/4), 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Freudenthal, H. (1991).
*Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures*. Dordrecth: Kluwer.Google Scholar - Froebel, F. (2005).
*The education of man*(W. N. Hailmann, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885).Google Scholar - Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (in press). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters.
*Journal of Educational Psychology*. doi: 10.1037/a0028389. - Gerofsky, S. (2011). Seeing the graph vs. being the graph: Gesture, engagement and awareness in school mathematics. In G. Stam & M. Ishino (Eds.),
*Integrating gestures*(pp. 245–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar - Ginsburg, H. P. (1997).
*Entering the child’s mind*. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ginsburg, H. P., & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study.
*Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,**29*, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Godino, J. D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. R., & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.),
*Signifying and meaning*-*making in mathematical thinking, teaching, and learning: Semiotic perspectives [Special issue]*.*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77*(2), 247–265.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision.
*American Anthropologist,**96*(3), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999).
*The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind*. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar - Grice, P. (1989).
*Studies in the way of words*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry.
*Educational Technology Research and Development,**30*(4), 233–252.Google Scholar - Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989).
*Fourth generation evaluation*. Newbury, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.Google Scholar - Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
*The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues*(pp. 195–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar - 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, 8–12 April 2011. http://edrl.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/AERA2011-Hooks-and-Shifts.pdf. - Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction.
*Annual Review of Anthropology,**5*, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Sfard, A. (2012). Identity struggles in the mathematics classroom: on learning mathematics as an interplay of mathematizing and identifying.
*International Journal of Educational Research,**51–52*, 128–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 the association for computer machinery special interest group on computer human interaction: “Human factors in computing systems” (CHI 2011)*, Vancouver, 7–12 May 2011 (Vol. “Full Papers”, pp. 1989–1998). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar - Hutchins, E. (1995).
*Cognition in the wild*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Ingold, T. (2011).
*The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill*(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar - Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,**116*, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kamii, C. K., & DeClark, G. (1985).
*Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory*. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar - Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist.
*Mind & Language,**3*(3), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Karplus, R., Pulos, S., & Stage, E. K. (1983). Proportional reasoning of early adolescents. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),
*Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes*(pp. 45–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Kirsh, D. (1996). Adapting the environment instead of oneself.
*Adaptive Behavior,**4*(3–4), 415–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action.
*Cognitive Science,**18*(4), 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999).
*For and against method*. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar - Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.
*American Educational Research Journal,**27*(1), 29–63.Google Scholar - Lampert, M. (2001).
*Teaching problems and the problems of teaching*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.),
*Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing*(pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas.Google Scholar - Mamolo, A. (2010). Polysemy of symbols: Signs of ambiguity.
*The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast,**7*(2&3), 247–261.Google Scholar - Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. ZDM: The international Journal on.
*Mathematics Education,**41*, 427–440.Google Scholar - Marshall, P., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. v. d., & Rogers, Y. (Eds.). (in press). The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design [Special issue].
*ACM Transactions on Human*–*Computer Interaction*.Google Scholar - Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts.
*Cognitive Science,**29*(4), 587–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.),
*Proceedings of the 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.Google Scholar - Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).
*The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school*. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**33*(2), 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996).
*Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers*. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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,**39*, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Papert, S. (1980).
*Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Piaget, J. (1971).
*Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes*. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - 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,**26*, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pratt, D., Jones, I., & Prodromou, T. (2006). An elaboration of the design construct of phenomenalisation.
*Paper presented at the seventh international conference on teaching statistics*, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, July 2–7, 2006.Google Scholar - Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction.
*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,**15*(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken, and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**22*(2), 14–23.Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: Seeing structures in generalizing activities.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**30*(2), 2–7.Google Scholar - 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, Ch. 18: Technology, pp. 1488–1496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.Google Scholar - Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**13*(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rotman, B. (2000).
*Mathematics as sign: Writing, imagining, counting*. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar - Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation.
*For the Learning of Mathematics,**19*(2), 19–26.Google Scholar - Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies.
*Educational Researcher,**20*(3), 2–9.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.
*The American Journal of Sociology,**102*(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where.
*Topics in Cognitive Science,**1*(2), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sherin, M. G., Russ, R., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study.
*Issues in Teacher Education,**17*(2), 27–46.Google Scholar - Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
*Educational Researcher,**15*(2), 4–14.Google Scholar - Skemp, R. R. (1983). The silent music of mathematics.
*Mathematics Teaching,**102*(58), 287–288.Google Scholar - Skemp, R. R. (1993).
*Theoretical foundations of problem solving: a position paper*. Retrieved from http://www.skemp.org.uk/. - Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2011).
*WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom*. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar - Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**3*(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990).
*Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques*. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar - Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction.
*Educational Researcher,**41*(5), 147–156. doi: 10.3102/0013189x12442801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics.
*Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society,**30*, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Trninic, D., & Abrahamson, D. (in press). Embodied interaction as designed mediation of conceptual performance. In D. Martinovic & V. Freiman (Eds.),
*Visual mathematics and cyberlearning*.Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Waismeyer, B. C., & Abrahamson, D. (submitted).
*Quantitative analysis of tutorial tactics for embodied interaction*, (Manuscript submitted toward presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 2013).Google Scholar - 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks.
*Cognitive Science,**18*, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. In Harnad, S., & Dror, I. E. (Eds.),
*Distributed cognition*[Special issue].*Pragmatics & Cognition, 14*(2), 333–341.Google Scholar