=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Determining the Role of Abstraction and Executive Control in Process Modeling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-933/pap2.pdf
|volume=Vol-933
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/WilmontBH12
}}
==Determining the Role of Abstraction and Executive Control in Process Modeling ==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-933/pap2.pdf
Determining the Role of Abstraction and
Executive Control in Process Modeling
Ilona Wilmont1 , Erik Barendsen1 , and Stijn Hoppenbrouwers1,2
1
Radboud University Nijmegen,
Institute for Computing and Information Sciences,
P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
i.wilmont@cs.ru.nl,e.barendsen@cs.ru.nl
2
HAN University of Applied Sciences,
P.O. Box 2217, 6802 CE, Arnhem, the Netherlands
stijn.hoppenbrouwers@han.nl
Abstract. In this paper, we describe our study on the relation between
formation of abstractions and aspects of executive control in the context
of process modeling. We have observed and recorded three business pro-
cess modeling projects in different companies. We report on the findings
resulting from the analysis of the first project. We find evidence that
certain traits related to high-quality abstraction formation contribute to
more structured modeling performance. Through our analysis we gain
more insight in the cognitive mechanisms involved in modeling, which
provides us with another step towards design of effective modeling sup-
port.
Key words: abstraction, executive control, process modeling support
1 The Need to Understand Modeling
Designing effective process modeling support depends on a thorough understand-
ing of the basic properties of modeling. Many authors have written about the
crucial importance of modeling in system design [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Yet, despite
its ubiquity in the design world, it is a poorly understood and error-prone ac-
tivity [6]. In this article, we present a way of observing modeling sessions and
inferring principles of modeling based on psychological mechanisms involved in
facilitating modeling.
We distinguish between two core phenomena: abstraction and executive con-
trol. Executive control processes involve metacognitive activities such as plan-
ning, organizing, monitoring, inhibition of distractions and initiation of correc-
tive actions. Based on observations in practical modeling situations involving
modelers and domain stakeholders, we explore how abstraction and aspects of
executive control work together to guide modeling behaviors in group situations.
In particular, which aspects of executive control feature most prominently in the
formation of abstract representations? What differences are there in executive
control between the formation of medium-level and high-level abstractions?
With the increasing role of business analysis and engineering in IS industry,
the importance of skills related to learning, planning, organization and monitor-
ing for IS professionals is apparent [7], [8], [9], [10]. As McCubbrey & Scudder
[11] put it: “This will require that analysts learn to function at a more abstract
level; and then translate those abstracts into concrete systems”. Such activities
typically happen during interactive, collaborative sessions involving both model-
ing analysts, and domain stakeholders. Involving stakeholders is very important
in a modeling process [12], yet problems appear at the point where stakeholders
and modelers have to communicate, due to lack of common understanding [13],
[3].
Viewing modeling as a conversation in which individuals’ mental models are
being made explicit and merged into a shared mental model [14], guided by goals
and interests and directed by executive skills allows us to decompose modeling
into elementary processes pertaining to conversation structure, abstraction for-
mation and executive processes. From this, we may gain an understanding of
where some of the key difficulties may lie, and consequently training programs
can be adapted to suit such needs.
We begin with a discussion of the core concepts involved in our research and
how we used them to create an analytical framework for the study of modeling
sessions. Then, we discuss the behavioral patterns emerging from analysis, and
finally we speculate on how these might be used as guidelines to design modeling
training programs.
1.1 Abstraction: Continuous Refinement of Representations
Modeling involves a continuous refinement of the participants’ mental represen-
tations. They gradually take shape as they are continuously being explained
to others. Such representations are abstractions of the daily practice, involving
the domain structure, constraints on information flows and all kinds of domain
properties. The process of forming such abstractions is very much an iterative,
cyclic process. Abstraction occurs as early as during the perception phase. There
is no clear distinction between concrete, sensory experiences and abstract rep-
resentations, free from such experiences. A concept in the mind may be just
as concrete as the real thing in practice, depending on how the representation
has been formed in the mind [15]. Good abstractions should be structured and
organized, and describe a whole range of behaviors of the issue under discussion
in order to create a better model for the intended goal: more complete, or maybe
simpler and more elegant. Only in an organized whole can some features hold
key positions whereas others become secondary [15]. In support of this, Vennix
[16] notes that people indeed tend to think in parts rather than viewing the
whole context when improperly trained.
There are many ways to define abstraction, depending on which perspec-
tive is taken. In an early theory of abstraction, George Berkeley (1685 - 1753)
argued that abstraction occurred through a ”shift in attention”; it is possible
to focus on a particular feature of a single object, and let that feature repre-
sent a whole group of objects [17]. In philosophy, mathematics and logic, it is
common to characterize abstraction in this way as information neglect: “elimi-
nating specificity by ignoring certain features” [18]. However, whereas the rigid
nature of abstractions in mathematics allows ignoring of information, the highly
dynamic and interactive nature of computer science is fundamentally different
and therefore requires a different interpretation. Arnheim [15] provides a nuance
to this view, adding that an abstraction is not a single distinctive attribute or
property, or not even a random collection of properties, for that matter. A mere
enumeration of traits does not constitute a coherent integrated concept. Rather,
it should represent the innermost essence of a concept. This may be explained
by saying that a concept should be generative; a more complete description of
the object in question must be constructible from the concept in question. Nev-
ertheless, feature distinction is very much guided by interests or goals, and a
similar element will not be considered in the same way in every single percept.
Colburn and Shute [18] further specify this notion by introducing the con-
cept of information hiding as opposed to information neglect. The main idea is
that irrelevant information is deliberately omitted so that the focus is only on
relevant aspects within the current scope. However, this omitted information is
not forgotten; it is assumed to be in place and correctly functioning at all times.
Therefore, the choice for any abstraction level depends on the purpose, goals and
intentions of the modeller wishing to view certain system functionality [19]. This
notion is fundamental to Rasmussen’s abstraction hierarchy: “a systematic way
to view different system functions according to the purpose, goals and intentions
of the person working with a certain part of the system” [19]. Each level in the
hierarchy provides certain details and features of the system based on what the
person working with the system needs for his task. A change in abstraction level
involves a shift in concepts and representation structure as well as a change in
information suitable to characterize the state of the function or operation at the
various levels of abstraction. For a process at any level of the hierarchy, informa-
tion on proper function is obtained from the level above, and information about
available resources and their limitations is obtained from the level below [19].
Models must provide proper abstractions of the problem domain, but they
often end up containing too many details, not using an adequate modeling gran-
ularity, or providing inappropriate abstraction layers [6]. Reasoning with ab-
stractions has been found to be considerably more difficult than reasoning with
concrete premises, requiring much more information to be held active in mind
[20], [21]. Indeed, the ability to form abstraction representations, the quality of
the resulting representations and the ability to make them explicit to others dif-
fer per individual, which greatly tends to influence the way a modeling session
proceeds [22]. Also, it has been found that humans are not very good at follow-
ing complex chains of reasoning, such as are typically involved in modeling [16].
However, humans learn progressively to handle more formal things [23], as their
mental models develop, and content and way of working gradually become more
automated. To understand this, we need to explore the principles of executive
control and how they play a role in modeling.
1.2 Executive Control: A Facilitatory Mechanism?
Mental representations are made explicit to others by means of conversation [24],
[14]. However, while there is usually some basic structure for a modeling session
in advance, the actual properties of the model discussed depend very much on the
associations made by the participants at the moment of discussion. This may lead
to rather fragmented knowledge elicitation, the results of which afterwards have
to be coherently integrated by modelers. Regardless of communication abilities,
which we do not explicitly consider here, this presents a high cognitive load
to modelers, as correctness of model content, coherence of model structure and
group discussion progress with regard to project goals have to be monitored
simultaneously. Organization of goal-directed behavior requires strong executive
control [25], a lack of which can leave modelers overwhelmed with information
and at a loss for structure.
Executive functions are a set of cognitive processes mediating one’s actions
and thoughts, which are separate from cognitive slave constructs such as long
term memory. There are metacognitive and self-regulatory executive functions
[25, 26]. Metacognitive functions are higher-level functions like planning, or-
ganizing, monitoring and initiation, whereas self-regulatory functions are more
basic processes like inhibition, attention shifting and updating working mem-
ory content. Staying focused on a task [27], as well as fully-fledged multitasking
problems [28], have been related to strong executive control. More specifically,
attentional control over intruding thoughts is implicated as contributing to bet-
ter reading comprehension [29]. The most generic mechanism executive tasks
tap is hypothesized to be “the maintenance of goal and context information in
working memory” [30]. Also, Engle et al. [31] propose that “any situations that
involve controlled processes (such as goal maintenance, conflict resolution, resis-
tance to or suppression of distracting information, error monitoring, and effortful
memory search) would require this ”controlled attention” capacity, regardless of
the specifics of the tasks to be performed.”
There is a lot of research emphasizing the need to implement executive pro-
cesses in order to facilitate effective team functioning [14]. For instance, teams
should learn to plan effectively, to communicate effectively, to define each others’
roles, to learn about each others’ background, to develop techniques for moni-
toring and feedback, to develop communication rules etc. There is no denying
that these skills are indeed vitally important for successful team functioning. A
deeper understanding of these skills in relation to modeling, however, would be
welcome.
1.3 Learning and Reflection During Modeling
Argyris [32] describes a general learning problem in organizations: people in
knowledge-intensive, interdisciplinary functions show precious little ability to
engage in metacognitive activities. Mere problem solving is not enough, man-
agers and employees need to reflect critically on their own performance and
adjust accordingly if improvement is to persist. However, humans have difficul-
ties reasoning with complex structures and they tend to ignore feedback on their
performance [16], [32]. Research from the domain of learning theory finds that
students do not spontaneously engage in activities in which they reflect on their
own work, asking themselves why they have done something in a particular way
or looking for possible alternatives. Rather, they have to be actively prompted
to go beyond the level of fact-based learning and memorization [33]. In this
same fashion, Jeffery et al. [14] recommend the implementation of communica-
tion and monitoring strategies for collaborative modeling teams in order to aid
their performance.
Vygotskian learning theory states that social situations with lots of inter-
action facilitate learning that involves both fact based learning and critical re-
flection on what has been learned [34], with the latter in particular facilitating
improvement [35]. Understanding based on passive recall differs from under-
standing based on active reasoning and knowledge construction [36, 35]. This is
where executive processes come into play. We know that students do not spon-
taneously engage in this type of interaction, and we see in our observations that
modelers who do so spontaneously are the minority. Yet these reflections are nec-
essary for structuring the model, monitoring it for correctness and completeness,
and structuring and monitoring the discussion leading to this model.
Therefore, we should structure modeling discourse such that it induces the
type of conversation that involves active manipulation of present knowledge. This
is achieved by involving activities such as explaining, thinking aloud, prompting,
resolving discrepancies and trying to integrate different ideas and perspectives
[35].
2 Methods and Observations
Our study was conducted at a Dutch organization. We observed two differ-
ent projects, which were part of an effort to chart the organization’s business
processes and to design new ones in order to develop a new automated infor-
mation system. They made use of collaborative modeling workshops to elicit
domain knowledge from stakeholders, and separate collaborative modeling ses-
sions involving the analysts only to integrate the elicited knowledge into coherent
models. These were again presented to the stakeholders in the consecutive work-
shop for review. The following stakeholder roles were involved: project manager,
business analyst, business architect, change manager, 2 heads of departments, 2
supervising seniors, internal auditor. The minimum group size in our study was
two. The types of models used were process models.
2.1 Data Collection
One researcher has spent three months at the company, being present at relevant
sessions, and recording them in audio format initially, but as the stakeholders be-
came more accustomed to the researchers presence, a video camera was installed
in the workshop room and video recordings were made in addition to audio. The
stakeholders indicated not to be bothered by its presence. Additional time was
spent getting to know the stakeholders, but care was taken not to talk about
the research objectives to avoid introducing research bias.
The modeling sessions and stakeholder workshops all took place in the same
project room, which was equipped with a beamer and two flip chart boards.
The models under discussion had been printed and were attached to the walls.
During the stakeholder workshops, the modelers presented the models to the
stakeholders and these were required to respond to certain issues or things that
appeared odd to them. In some cases, bits of model were explicitly shown, in
other cases, issues were formulated in natural language. During the analyst-only
modeling sessions, heavy use was made of the flip charts, and interaction was not
explicitly structured. Models were adapted and contradictory issues discussed.
2.2 Coding and Analysis
We recorded a total of 30 sessions. So far, we have transcribed 4 sessions, and
selected 12 interval-based fragments. They were coded for conversation structure,
cognitive processes, abstraction and executive control by two coders.
The components of conversation structure were taken and adapted from [37].
We have included here only those conversational constructs which have so far
appeared in our modeling sessions. Also, the adjacency pairs, as specified in [37],
do not necessarily always occur in direct pairs. Sometimes the expected reply
is missing, the pairs are nested or multiple pairs get mixed up. But in general,
they give a good overview of the kind of conversational constructs that are used
in different phases of the modeling discussion.
Cognitive processes are those operations that people perform either on di-
rectly available knowledge, such as inferences or justifications, or more complex
situations in which they reason with pro, such as reasoning by analogy or com-
paring different outcomes. The goal of analyzing cognitive processes is to find out
whether people use different types of reasoning as the discussion progresses, or
whether there are individual differences in reasoning styles which may correlate
with abstraction and executive control skills.
Abstraction is viewed from two perspectives: the different levels of abstrac-
tion, ranging from concrete to highly abstract [38], [21], and the process of re-
finement people go through during a discussion [15], characterized by shifts in
abstraction levels, either instantiating to a lower level, or generalizing to a higher
level.
The structure of the executive control section is based on [25], and has been
adapted to include specific behaviors occurring during modeling sessions.
In order to code, we used a table in which we assigned codes for each coding
component to each sentence uttered by a participant. We defined a sentence as a
set of words, separated by pauses in speech. This does not mean that a sentence
has to be complete, it can be broken off halfway through. Also, there can be
multiple sentences within a single speaking turn.
So far, our analysis has not proceeded far enough to do actual counting of
code occurrences, so we infer patterns of behavior based on what we have seen in
the sessions analyzed. After coding, we discussed our findings. As the codebook
is also still developing, no inter-coder reliability could yet be computed.
3 Results: Patterns of Modeling Interaction
The general pattern of interaction observed in both modeling workshops and
analyst-only session is that a discussion cycle covering one topic generally starts
with extensive refinement of representations. A combination of speculating about
possible situations, and paraphrasing them to make sure everyone understands
the issue at hand correctly, is used. This is followed by a cycle of inferences,
elaborations, instantiations, justifications on the cognitive side, structured in
the conversation in terms of questions, contradictions, encouraging and doubt-
signaling probes and extensive answer accounts using illustrations and examples.
In abstraction terms, this second cycle is characterized by a continuous set of
shifts to a lower level: from a medium abstract to a concrete level of representa-
tion. Shifts to higher levels are rare during this cycle, and they often tend to fail
because of insufficient comprehension. Only after this cycle has been repeated
for several minutes do shifts from medium abstract to highly abstract levels start
to appear more frequently, and importantly, more successfully.
One of the main differences observed in the formulation of abstract represen-
tations is that some participants tend to pick out single properties and use them
as a metonymy for an entire issue. Others give generic descriptions of how issues
behave in more generic context using multiple properties. They complete their
abstraction refinements more often, reasoning them through to the end rather
than breaking off halfway through.
Monitoring of the modeling goals, the entire group progress, and group dis-
cussion topics, appear much more frequently in participants who make more
complete abstractions. They were also more flexible in topic and strategy switch-
ing, and they also more easily self-correct and explicitly admit faults. They stay
more focused and recover faster from distractions, such as jokes or irrelevant
issues. In the other participants, monitoring is more limited to self-monitoring
on a smaller scale. On top of that, the behavioral pattern includes much more
frequent deviations from focus, difficulty understanding and keeping to the scope
of concepts and echoing peers.
Important to notice that these monitoring skills are not limited to modelers,
stakeholders engage in monitoring behavior and good abstraction formulation
just as much if they are capable.
3.1 Examples
Below is an example of an initiation of a discussion cycle, with a stakeholder
trying to formulate an issue, and other participants (stakeholders (S) and mod-
elers (M)) trying to refine what he means by means of examples. This represents
a cycle of shifts to a lower level of abstraction.
S1: look, the employer also delivers to eh... the tax office,
and if you ... have to deliver your data from the same salary system ...
yes... well then eh... you should eh...
in my opinion... use it, finished...
M1: [...] what we should figure out for this is... what is the
percentage that someone does not deliver... and actually is out of
service... so that you get a kind of code 23 and that appears to be
correct because he has forgotten to send in his AAD... and what is
the percentage that something else is going ... going on... [..]
S2: so you would... you would say that hey, 95 percent is eh...
S3 and S2: out of service!
S2: but has not sent in an AAD... and 5 percent is indeed
something else... that we can conclude eh...
An example of an abstraction shift to a higher level being corrected because it
had been attempted too early on in the process:
M2: okay so currently... it is too much to say okay,
if an employer delivers, we can assume that it is complete...
S1: no, you have to see if the employer will eh...
deliver, you will get a signal immediately
[...]
so then with eh... what you miss... you already report that,
we don’t do that now
[...]
now he gets 5 days [..] hey we have not received an AAD
from you... if that .. report comes back immediately...
then you can initiate action... in whatever form...
An example of a case of explicit monitoring between two modelers:
M2: why don’t I go and put it into the tool, like this?
M1: what if..... eh.... Goal of the process is to register the
details about the wages....
[...]
M1: what if we eh.... Monitoring..... huh.... We send a reminder,
hey good friend, eh.... Eh.... You haven’t sent us anything yet....
M2: yes...
M1: we get no reply....
M2: yes..
M1: what happens then?
M2: there is no reply, then we receive nothing...
M1: right, then we receive nothing
M2: and then we don’t achieve our goal...
4 Discussion and Future Research
There appears to be a clustering of behavioral traits that lead to desirable mod-
eling performance: the ability to formulate generic abstractions capturing the
essence of a concept, switch flexibly between abstraction levels to good effect, be
able to structure a discussion, stay focused on the topic and scope, monitor both
one’s own thoughts and contributions and the group’s progress towards model-
ing goals as a whole. On the other hand, participants who make more superficial
abstractions, focusing rather on single properties of concepts and using them to
represent the entire thing, also show less awareness of what is being discussed,
deviate from focus more often, become more easily distracted and tend break
off their reasoning processes and sentences halfway through. If we keep in mind
Arnheim’s [15] definitions for what does and what does not constitute an ab-
straction, we can say that the first group makes abstractions of a higher quality
than does the second group. Given that this appears to depend on the individual
rather than the individual’s background and training, it seems that individual
differences may override background and experience, in any case when explicit
training has not been given.
The higher or lower quality which these traits display seems to be a collec-
tion of symptoms resulting from a psychological mechanism, which may function
more or less efficiently in different individuals. We suspect that working mem-
ory (WM) capacity may play an important facilitating role in the formation
of abstractions. WM has been implicated in executive control, and since our
analysis suggests a strong associative relationship between executive control and
abstraction, it will be interesting to test whether WM capacity plays a direct
role in abstract reasoning processes during modeling. If this should be so, ex-
ecutive control for our purposes will be no more than a descriptive construct,
and it may be necessary to find ways to directly support memory and atten-
tional resources during modeling rather than the higher-level communication
and feedback processes described by many authors.
However, a lot more study is required before we gain a sufficient understand-
ing of the role of memory in modeling. On the short term, promising results are
being obtained with explicit training of executive and metacognitive skills using
strategy training, eg. [39], [40]. This is a form of training used in education to
make students aware of their ways of learning and reasoning. People are taught
metacognitive strategies to monitor their comprehension and progress.
Teaching modelers strategies which lead to successful modeling results may
provide them with footholds based on which they can structure a modeling
session. For instance, making goals explicit before starting a session, ensuring
that the initial phases of a session contain lots of discussion in which different
mental representations are made explicit using examples and illustrations on a
concrete level before moving on to higher abstractions, using predefined moments
to monitor progress and evaluate where the modeling process is in relation to
the previously specified goals, or explicitly testing whether abstractions made
really do capture the essence of a concept rather than a single random property.
In summary, it boils down to making people consciously aware of a certain
structure to aid their way of working, and implementing explicit markers to
remind them to perform the necessary actions. In a way, this is already a form
of directly supporting working memory, since its contents are being offloaded to
a static form in which they can be viewed and re-evaluated at all times.
5 Conclusion
We find that some of the most prominent aspects of executive control in facili-
tating the formation of abstract representations are the ability to stay focused,
to finish complex chains of reasoning, to monitor individual and group progress
at all times, and to view concepts holistically rather than according to single
properties. All these executive aspects demand focused attention and reflective
awareness of one’s actions.
The essential difference in abstraction formation quality does not appear to
be so much whether or not a certain level of abstraction can be achieved, but
rather how the abstractions are formed: people who form abstractions based
on single properties can make high-level abstractions and still be corrected by
their peers because some aspect of the object’s behavior has been overlooked
in this way. Those who make generative, holistic abstractions can make high-
level abstractions which are good reflections of the essence of a certain concept
in a given context. This difference appears to correlate with overall strength of
executive functioning in individuals.
Ilona Wilmont and Stijn Hoppenbrouwers are members of the Enterprise Engineering
Team (EE-Team), a collaboration between Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Rad-
boud University Nijmegen and HAN University of Applied Sciences (www. ee-team.
eu ).
For an overview of the codebook, please contact the first author.
References
1. Barjis, J.: The importance of business process modeling in software systems design.
Science of Computer Programming 71(1) (2008) 73–87
2. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learn-
ing. Communications of the ACM 46(10) (2003) 79–84
3. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Weigand, H., Rouwette, E.: Setting rules of play for col-
laborative modelling. International Journal of e-Collaboration, Special Issue on
Collaborative Business Information System Development (2009)
4. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners
use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3) (2006)
358–380
5. Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G., De Vreede, G.: Challenges in collaborative modelling:
a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Simulation and
Process Modelling 4(3) (2008) 248–263
6. Fettke, P.: How conceptual modeling is used. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 25 (2009)
7. Elliot, C.: Qualities of a data processing manager. Data Management 13 (January
1975) 35 – 37
8. Miller, R.B.: 13. In: The Information System Designer. Volume 1 of The Analysis
of Practical Skills. University Park Press (1978) 278–291
9. Nelson, R.: Educational needs as perceived by is and end-user personnel: A survey
of knowledge and skill requirements. Mis Quarterly (1991) 503–525
10. Lee, D., Trauth, E., Farwell, D.: Critical skills and knowledge requirements of
is professionals: a joint academic/industry investigation. MIS quarterly (1995)
313–340
11. McCubbrey, D., Scudder, R.A.: The systems analyst of the 1990’s. In: Proceedings
of the ACM SIGCPR conference on Management of information systems personnel,
ACM (1988) 8–16
12. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.: The effects of decomposition quality and multiple
forms of information on novices: Understanding of a domain from a conceptual
model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(12) (2008) 1
13. Urquhart, C.: Exploring analyst-client communication: using grounded theory
techniques to investigate interaction in informal requirements gathering. Informa-
tion systems and qualitative research. London: Chapman and Hall (1997) 149–181
14. Jeffery, A., Maes, J., Bratton-Jeffery, M.: Improving team decision-making per-
formance with collaborative modeling. Team Performance Management 11(1/2)
(2005) 40–50
15. Arnheim, R.: Visual Thinking. University of California Press (1969)
16. Vennix, J.: Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics
Review 15(4) (1999) 379–401
17. Berkeley, G., Krauth, C.P.: A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowl-
edge. JB Lippincott & Co. (1878)
18. Colburn, T., Shute, G.: Abstraction in Computer Science. Minds and Machines
17(2) (2007) 169–184
19. Rasmussen, J. In: The Abstraction Hierarchy. North-Holland (1986) 13–24
20. Markovits, H., Doyon, C., Simoneau, M.: Individual differences in working mem-
ory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content. Thinking &
Reasoning 8(2) (2002) 97–107
21. Christoff, K., Keramatian, K., Gordon, A., Smith, R., Mädler, B.: Prefrontal
organization of cognitive control according to levels of abstraction. Brain Research
1286 (2009) 94–105
22. Wilmont, I., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Hengeveld, S.: Abstract
reasoning in collaborative modeling. In: HICSS Proceedings. Volume 45. (2012)
23. Van Reeuwijk, M.: From Informal to Formal, Progressive Formalization: An Ex-
ample on Solving Systems of Equations. In: Proceeding of the 12th International
Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI) Study Conference The Future of
the Teaching and Learning of Algebra, 2. (2001) 613–620
24. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal modelling as a
grounded conversation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Working Con-
ference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling. (June
2005) 139–155
25. Gioia, G., Isquith, P., Kenealy, L. In: Assessment of behavioral aspects of executive
function. Psychology Press (2008) 179–202
26. Barkley, R.A.: ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control. The Guilford Press (1997)
27. Stuss, D., Murphy, K., Binns, M., Alexander, M.: Staying on the job: The frontal
lobes control individual performance variability. Brain 126(11) (2003) 2363–2380
28. Burgess, P.: Real-world multitasking from a cognitive neuroscience perspective.
Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (2000) 465–472
29. McVay, J.C., Kane, M.J.: Why does working memory capacity predict variation
in reading comprehension? on the influence of mind wandering and executive at-
tention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Advance Online Publi-
cation (2011)
30. Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Emerson, M., Witzki, A., Howerter, A., Wager, T.:
The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex
frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology 41(1) (2000)
49–100
31. Engle, R., Kane, M., Tuholski, S.: 4. In: Individual Differences in Working Mem-
ory Capacity and What They Tell Us About Controlled Attention, General Fluid
Intelligence, and Functions of the Prefrontal Cortex. Cambridge University Press
(1999) 102–134
32. Argyris, C.: Teaching Smart People How To Learn. In: Strategic Learning in a
Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective, and Organizational Learning Process.
Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford (2000) 279–295
33. King, A. In: Scripting Collaborative Learning Processes: A Cognitive Perspective.
Volume 6 of Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer US
(2007) 13–37
34. Vygotsky, L.: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press (1978)
35. King, A.: Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In: Cognitive perspectives
on peer learning. Routledge (1999) 87–115
36. Mayer, R.: Models for understanding. Review of educational research 59(1) (1989)
43–64
37. Ten Have, P.: Methodological issues in conversation analysis 1. Bulletin de
Méthodologie Sociologique 27(1) (1990) 23–51
38. Goldstein, K., Scheerer, M.: Abstract and concrete behavior; an experimental
study with special tests. Psychological monographs (1941)
39. McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L.: 2. In: The Role of Metacognition in Understanding
and Supporting Reading Comprehension. Taylor & Francis (2009) 7–25
40. Karbach, J., Kray, J.: How useful is executive control training? age differences
in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental Science 12(6)
(2009) 978–990