Do Moments Sum to Years? Explanations in Time

  • Richard LehrerEmail author
  • Leona Schauble
Part of the Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies book series (LSIS, volume 1)


In this final chapter, Lehrer and Schauble review the contributions of the commentary chapters with an eye to evaluating whether and how fine-grained analyses of brief slices of time illuminate long-term development and learning. The authors conclude that interaction analysis can lend richness, depth, and complexity that are difficult to pursue at larger time-scales. At the same time, this kind of close focus can miss larger patterns, because there is no guarantee that what happens within a relatively brief period will resemble or predict the forms of reasoning, disciplinary knowledge, and identity that a student develops over the years of his or her educational history. These conclusions articulate a tension that goes to the heart of our field – we do not yet have either satisfactory mechanisms of account or even many extent cases that can assist us in reconciling perspectives and explanations at different scales of time. As the field of education research matures, seeking this kind of articulation among levels of description will become increasingly important.


Workshop Participant Disciplinary Knowledge Statistical Thinking Educational History Mathematical Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. diSessa, A. (2004). Meta-representation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Lehrer, R., & Kim, M. J. (2009). Structuring variability by negotiating its measure. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21, 116–133.Google Scholar
  5. Lehrer, R., Kim, M., & Schauble, L. (2007). Supporting the development of conceptions of statistics by engaging students in modeling and measuring variability. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 12, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1994, April). The embedded history of classroom learning. In E. Forman (Chair), Integrating the cognitive and the social in the construction of mathematical and scientific knowledge. Symposium conducted at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  7. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 635–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics (pp. 107–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Thompson, P. W., Liu, Y., & Saldanha, L. A. (2007). Intricacies of statistical inference and teachers’ understanding of them. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 207–231). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningVanderbilt University’s Peabody CollegeNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations