@misc{cogprints1988,
          volume = {1},
          number = {3-4},
           month = {March},
          author = {William Clancey},
           title = {Is Abstraction a Kind of Idea or How Conceptualization Works?},
         journal = {Cognitive Science Quarterly},
           pages = {389--421},
            year = {2001},
             url = {http://cogprints.org/1988/},
        abstract = {In this commentary, I review papers by Ohlsson \& Regan (O\&R), van Oers, and Dreyfus, Hershkowitz, \& Schwarz (DH\&S). The papers are nominally about abstraction and learning, but emphasize different kinds of problems and levels of analysis. O\&R focus on mathematical, ?domain independent? characteristics of abstract thinking, claiming that experience in a domain is not the main determinant of scientific discovery. van Oers focuses on the development of abstraction within activities, especially as a sequence of nested domains of concern. DH\&S emphasize how nested conceptualizations co-define and provide meaning for each other (a dialectic relation).}
}

<script src="//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js"></script>