Page 513 - Deep Learning

496 References

———. (1998). Spearman’s g = Anderson’s ACT? Reflections on The Bell Curve and the
locus of generality in human cognition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 7,
pp. 135–145.
———. (1999a). Theoretical commitment and implicit knowledge: Why anomalies do
not trigger learning. Science and Education, vol. 8, pp. 559–574.
———. (1999b). Anchoring language in reality: Observations on reference and represen-
tation. Discourse Processes, vol. 28, pp. 93–105.
———. (2000). Falsification, anomalies and the naturalistic approach to cognitive
change. Science and Education, vol. 9, pp. 173–186.
———. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In A. Graesser,
J. Leon, & J. Otero (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp.
91–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
———. (2007a). The effects of order: A constraint-based explanation. In F. E. Ritter, J.
Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. M. O’Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of
topics influences learning (pp. 151–165). New York: Oxford University Press.
———. (2007b). The separation of thought and action in Western tradition. In A. Brook
(Ed.), The prehistory of cognitive science (pp. 17–37). New York: MacMillan.
———. (2007c). Psychology is about processes. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, vol. 41, pp. 28–34.
———. (2008a). Computational models of skill acquisition. In R. Sun (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 359–395). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
———. (2008b). How is it possible to have a new idea? In D. Ventura, M. L. Maher, &
S. Colton (Eds.), Creative intelligent systems: Papers from the AAAI Spring Sym-
posium (Technical Report SS-08–03, pp. 61–66). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
———. (2009a). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and
belief revision. Educational Psychologist, vol. 44, pp. 20–40.
———. (2009b). Meaning change, multiple routes and the role of differentiation in
conceptual change: Alternatives to resubsumption? Educational Psychologist, vol.
44, pp. 64–71.
———. (2010). Questions, patterns and explanations, not hypothesis testing, is
the core of psychology as of any science. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 27–44).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ohlsson, S., & Bee, N. (1991). Radical strategy variability: A challenge to models of
procedural learning. In L. Birnbaum (Ed.), Proceedings of the International
Conference of the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,
August 4–7 (pp. 351–356). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education.
Ohlsson, S., Di Eugenio, B., Chow, B., Fossati, D., Lu, X., & Kershaw, T. C. (2007). Beyond
the code-and-count analysis of tutoring dialogues. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, &
J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning
contexts that work (pp. 349–356). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Ohlsson, S., Ernst, A., & Rees, E. (1992) The cognitive complexity of doing and learning
arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 23, pp. 441–467.