Analogical comparison - Revision history

Mbett at 13:29, 29 August 2011

2011-08-29T13:29:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 29 August 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[Category: Glossary]]		[[Category: Glossary]]
	[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]		[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]

	~~[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php custom writing]~~

	~~[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php essay writing service]~~

Woolerystixmaker at 09:23, 26 August 2011

2011-08-26T09:23:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 26 August 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:

	[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php custom writing]		[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php custom writing]

			[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php essay writing service]

Stefficorneliusa at 07:49, 19 August 2011

2011-08-19T07:49:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:49, 19 August 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[Category: Glossary]]		[[Category: Glossary]]
	[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]		[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]

			[http://custom-essay-writing-service.org/index.php custom writing]

Koedinger at 16:12, 25 March 2008

2008-03-25T16:12:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 25 March 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	*Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. ''Psychological Review, 110'', 220-264.		*Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. ''Psychological Review, 110'', 220-264.

			[[Category: Learning Processes]]
	[[Category: Glossary]]		[[Category: Glossary]]
	[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]		[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]

Timothy Nokes at 15:02, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T15:02:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 21 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.		Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.

	==References==		===References===
	*Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, ''Cognitive Science, 7'', 155-170.		*Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, ''Cognitive Science, 7'', 155-170.
	*Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. ''Cognitive Psychology, 15'', 1-38.		*Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. ''Cognitive Psychology, 15'', 1-38.

Timothy Nokes at 15:02, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T15:02:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 21 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.		Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.

			==References==
			*Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, ''Cognitive Science, 7'', 155-170.
			*Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. ''Cognitive Psychology, 15'', 1-38.
			*Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. ''Psychological Review, 110'', 220-264.

	[[Category: Glossary]]		[[Category: Glossary]]
	[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]		[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]

Timothy Nokes at 14:58, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T14:58:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 21 May 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	[[Category: Glossary]]		[[Category: Glossary]]
			[[Category: Coordinative Learning]]

Timothy Nokes at 14:56, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T14:56:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 21 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.		Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.

	[[Category: Glossary ~~Item~~]]		[[Category: Glossary]]

Timothy Nokes at 14:55, 21 May 2007

2007-05-21T14:55:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 21 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.		Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.

			[[Category: Glossary Item]]

Timothy Nokes at 02:38, 8 May 2007

2007-05-08T02:38:58Z

New page

Analogical comparison operates through aligning and mapping two example problem representations to one another and then extracting their commonalities (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Hummel & Holyoak, 2003). This process discards the elements of the knowledge representation that do not overlap between two examples but preserves the common elements. The resulting knowledge organization typically consists of fewer superficial similarities (than the examples) but retains the deep causal structure of the problems.