title: Is Abstraction a Kind of Idea or How Conceptualization Works? creator: Clancey, William subject: Applied Cognitive Psychology description: 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). date: 2001-03 type: Journal (Paginated) type: PeerReviewed format: application/pdf identifier: http://cogprints.org/1988/3/CSQCommentaryClancey.pdf identifier: Clancey, William (2001) Is Abstraction a Kind of Idea or How Conceptualization Works? [Journal (Paginated)] relation: http://cogprints.org/1988/