Abstract
The studies conducted by Klein (1970) and Farris (1970) opened, in a somewhat indirect way, a multitude of questions about how to more adequately conceptualize the various modes of representation. The descriptions of the modes, as stated by Bruner (1964), are clearly much too loose for conducting instructional research of the type envisioned by the Paradigms Project. What appears to be needed are definitions that at least come close to permitting consistency of classification. In this connection, it was thought that more information about the individual modes—if even in their more pure forms—was a first order of business. In any event, it was this sort of thinking that gave rise to this investigation as well as to the companion study by Bowers (1971).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
