(Page 7 of 7) - A Taxonomy of Generative Activity Design Supported by Next-Generation Classroom Networks authored by Stroup, Walter., Ares, Nancy. and Hurford, Andrew.

of reasoning and the quality of pathways, can be engaged mechanically or by rote as is often the case with many
students’ experience of geometric proof or many students’ experience of studying algorithmic design in computer
science. But to the extent that these ideas can be engaged generatively, the potential of students attending to the
forms of reasoning can assume greater significance in group-based learning settings.

The particular power of network-supported capabilities relative to this form of activity comes from making

visible multiple instances of a particular kind of reasoning. This form of generativity is focused on rhetoric and
logic, broadly conceived and students and teachers are supported in engaging the sense in which the particular forms
of reasoning they use are related. What kind of reasoning, for example, allows us to speak of this expressive artifact
“3x+1x” as being the “same” as “2x + 2x”? How is this form of reasoning like or different from the form of
reasoning that allows us to say that two pieces of music are both jazz?

5.0 Conclusion

The pathways and endpoints taxonomy of kinds of generative activity is intended to be useful both in clarifying

the relations between kinds of generative activities and in exemplifying internal aspects of generative design,
especially as supported by next-generation classroom networks. These approaches to generative learning and
teaching can be integrated with new forms of functionality supported by next-generation classroom networks and
result in significant improvements in mathematics and science teaching and learning.

References

Ares, N., Stroup, W., & Schademan, A. (2004, April). Group-level development of powerful discourses in

mathematics: Networked classroom technologies as mediating artifacts. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Carnegie Learning (2003), The Cognitive Tutor. Available at: http://www.carnegielearning.com/
Davis, S. M. (2002). Research to industry: Four years of observations in classrooms using a network of handheld

devices. IEEE International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Technologies in Education, Växjö, Sweden.

Hegedus, S. & Kaput, J. (2002). (2002, October). Exploring the phenomena of classroom connectivity. In D.

Mewborn, et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 422-432). Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse.

Lesh, R., Doerr, H., Carmona, G., et. al (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,

5(2&3), 211-233.

Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., Post, T., (2000). Principles for Developing Thought-Revealing Activities

for Students and Teachers. In A. Kelly and R. Lesh (Eds.), Research Design in Mathematics and Science
Education. (pp. 591-646). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Roschelle, J and Vahey, P. (2003), Networked Handhelds: How Can Classroom Connectivity Advance Standards-

Based Teaching? NCTM Research Pre-session, San Antonio.

Stroup, W. (1997) Catalog of generative activities & What’s a generative activity? Available at

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/wstroup/gen_act_catalog.html

Stroup, W., Kaput, J. J., et al. (2002). The Nature and future of classroom connectivity: The Dialectics of

mathematics in the social space. (pp. 195-203) Proceedings of Psychology of Mathematics Education - North
America, Athens, Georgia.

Stroup, W., Ares, N., & Hurford, A. (in press). A dialectical analysis of generativity: Issues of network supported

design in mathematics and science. Mathematical Thinking and Learning

Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in

classrooms. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL ’99,
Stanford University.

Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (in review). Embodied science learning: Students enacting complex dynamic

phenomena with the HubNet architecture.

Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 169-184.