The importance of dynamic systems approaches for understanding development.

By Mark L. Howe, Marc D. Lewis. 2005

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/da1d99290cc0ffde387260b320cd512a94af1ab1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. P. Macintyre
2. Z. Dörnyei
3. P. V. van Geert
4. D. Larsen-Freeman
5. David C. Witherington
6. W. Overton
7. Jean–Marc Dewaele
8. Mostafa Papi

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

1. P. Macintyre
2. Z. Dörnyei
3. P. V. van Geert

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. P. Macintyre
2. Z. Dörnyei
3. P. V. van Geert

Citations in the corpus

• Children’s Creativity: A Theoretical Framework and Systematic Review (2018, background): “…or the environment directly and one-sidedly “steering” creative processes (opponents of the Darwinian perspective), person and context actually shape each other through their continuous transactions over time (Fogel, 2009; Howe & Lewis, 2005; A. Sameroff, 2009; A. J. Sameroff & Chandler, 1975).”
• The Idiodynamic Method: A Closer Look at the Dynamics of Communication Traits (2012, methodology): “The idiodynamic method takes advantage of insights gained from theory and research in dynamic systems theory of human development (see for example, Howe & Lewis, 2005; Thelan & Smith, 1994; van Geert, 2011).”
• Individual Differences: Interplay of Learner Characteristics and Learning Environment (2009, background): “In a position paper in Developmental Review championing dynamic systems approaches, Howe and Lewis (2005) explained the reasons why dynamic systems approaches to development remain a clear minority as follows: There has been a great deal of complaining in developmental journals about the…”