2009
DOI: 10.1159/000213892
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

‘Conceptual Metaphor Meets Conceptual Change’: Yes to Embodiment, No to Fragmentation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(23 reference statements)
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Debates about this discrepancy between “naïve” physics and formal physics have often pitted theories that emphasize the cognitive aspects of conceptual change against theories that emphasize the processes of reasoning occurring in the context of phenomenological experience or sociocultural activities. A more productive path may be to acknowledge that individuals have multiple repertoires (both conceptual and experiential) for understanding complex scientific concepts ( Hammer, 2000 ; Amin, 2009 , 2015 ; Vosniadou, 2009 ). In this study, we draw upon a sociocultural framework by focusing on a crucial piece that is often left out of these discussions: a characterization of the everyday experiences within which children come to understand and use such concepts ( Rogoff et al, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Debates about this discrepancy between “naïve” physics and formal physics have often pitted theories that emphasize the cognitive aspects of conceptual change against theories that emphasize the processes of reasoning occurring in the context of phenomenological experience or sociocultural activities. A more productive path may be to acknowledge that individuals have multiple repertoires (both conceptual and experiential) for understanding complex scientific concepts ( Hammer, 2000 ; Amin, 2009 , 2015 ; Vosniadou, 2009 ). In this study, we draw upon a sociocultural framework by focusing on a crucial piece that is often left out of these discussions: a characterization of the everyday experiences within which children come to understand and use such concepts ( Rogoff et al, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, embodied learning in semi-virtual environments demonstrated improved STEM learning outcomes compared to regular classroom instruction [17]. Haptic technology may provide a much needed bridge that spans the perception-conception division [39].…”
Section: Background 21 Haptics For Training and Science Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Desde diferentes posiciones, la unidad cognitiva con que se organiza el conocimiento del sujeto se le ha llamado de múltiples formas. Aun así, se llame esquema de acción u operatorio (Coll, 1983; Delval, 1997; Piaget, 1978a) teoría implícita (Castorina, Alicia, y Toscano, 2008; Pozo, Scheuer, Mateos, y Echeverría, 2006; Rodrigo y Correa, 1999), teoría personal (Kelly, 1955), teoría de dominio (Karmiloff-Smith, 1994; Vosniadou, 2009), teoría intuitiva (Guo y Carey, 2008; Pozo, Scheuer, Mateos et al ., 2006), esquema cognitivo (Pascual-Leone y Johnson, 2005; Rumelhart y Ortony, 1982), esquema alternativo (Driver, 1986); modelo mental (Gutiérrez, 2005), etcétera, salvo diferencias de detalle debido a que parten o se sustentan en asunciones diferentes (Castorina, 2002; Delval, 1997; Pozo, 1989; Vuyk, 1985), en general, las funciones cognitivas que asignan los diferentes autores muestran analogías pero también diferencias (Marín, 2003a).…”
Section: Constructos Para Describir El Conocimiento Individualunclassified
“…From different positions, the cognitive unit that organizes the subject’s knowledge has been given many different names. Thus, it is called, action or operative scheme (Coll, 1983; Delval, 1997; Piaget, 1978a), implicit theory (Castorina, Alicia, & Toscano, 2008; Pozo, Scheuer, Mateos, & Echeverría, 2006; Rodrigo & Correa, 1999), personal theory (Kelly, 1955), domain theory (Karmiloff-Smith, 1994; Vosniadou, 2009), intuitive theory (Guo & Carey, 2008; Pozo, Scheuer, Mateos et al, 2006), cognitive scheme (Pascual-Leone & Johnson, 2005; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1982), alternative scheme (Driver, 1986), mental model (Gutiérrez, 2005), etc., with the caveat of differences in detail, due to the fact that they are based on or supported by different assumptions (Castorina, 2002; Delval, 1997; Pozo, 1989; Vuyk, 1985), in general, cognitive functions that different authors allocate, show similarities but also differences (Marín, 2003a).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%