Supporting students' participation in authentic proof activities in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 343-359

  Öner, Diler ^a  

^a BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Dynamic geometry software; Knowledge forum; Mathematical proof; NCTM reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 50949094106     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-008-9043-7     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allen, F. B. (1996). A program for raising the level of student achievement in secondary level mathematics. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://mathematicallycorrect.com/allen.htm.
2. Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), The proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 106-114). The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
3. Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, 7(8). Retrieved from http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/Newsletter/990708Theme/ 990708ThemeUK.html.
4. Chazan, D. (1993a). High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359-387.
5. Chazan, D. (1993b). Instructional implications of students' understanding of the differences between empirical verification and mathematical proof. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of?. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathematics students. British Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 41-53.
7. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
8. de Villiers, M. (1997). The role of proof in investigative, computer-based geometry: Some personal reflections. In R. J. King, & D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on: Dynamic software in learning, teaching, and research. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
9. de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. de Villiers, M. (2003). Rethinking proof with the Geometer's Sketchpad. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum.
11. di Sessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
12. Edwards, L. D. (1997). Exploring the territory before proof: Students' generalizations in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2, 187-215.
13. Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14. Furinghetti, F., Olivero, F., & Paola, D. (2001). Students approaching proof through conjectures: Snapshots in a classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(3), 319-335.
15. Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2000). He role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 127-150.
17. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.
18. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometric problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 235-256.
19. Holzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations-A case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 63-86.
20. Hoyles, C. (1997). The curricular shaping of students' approaches to proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(1), 7-16.
21. Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana, & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
22. Jackiw, N. (1995). The Geometer's Sketchpad (Version 3). Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum.
23. Jackiw, N. (2001). The Geometer's Sketchpad (Version 4). Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum.
24. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 55-85.
25. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
26. Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 151-161.
27. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283-317.
28. Lakatos, I. (1978). Mathematics, science and epistemology (vol. 2). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
29. Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 151-161.
30. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 72-81). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
31. Livingston, E. (1999). Cultures of proving. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 867-888.
32. Livingston, E. (2006). The context of proving. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 39-68.
33. Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 25-53.
34. Mariotti, M. A. (2001). Justifying and proving in the Cabri environment. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 257-281.
35. Marrades, R., & Gutierrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 87-125.
36. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 441-465.
37. Nason, R., & Woodruff, E. (2003). Fostering authentic, sustained, and progressive mathematical knowledge-building activity in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) communities. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 345-363.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40. Norman, D. A. (1994). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
41. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
42. Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
43. Pea, R., Tinker, R., Linn, M., Means, B., Brandsford, J., Roschelle, J., et al. (1999). Toward a learning technologies knowledge network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 19-38.
44. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical model. London: Penguin Books.
45. Pólya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York: Wiley.
46. Rav, Y. (2007). A critique of a formalist-mechanist version of the justification of arguments in mathematicians' proof practices. Philosophia Mathematica, 3(15), 291-320.
47. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
48. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). Bguile: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver, & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Reiss, K., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM), 34(1), 29-35.
50. Romberg, T. A. (1992). Problematic features of the school mathematics curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. New York: MacMillan.
51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2004). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456.
54. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
55. Silver, E., & Carpenter, T. (1989). Mathematical methods. In M. Lindquist (Ed.), Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress (pp. 10-18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
56. Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. (1998). National geographic unplugged: Designing interactive nature films for classrooms. In C. M. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI98 (pp. 424-431). New York: ACM.
57. Stahl, G. (2006). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 103-122.
58. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421-447.
59. Stylianides, G. J., & Silver, E. A. (2004). An analytic framework for investigating the opportunities offered to students. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, (pp. 611-619)). Toronto, ON, Canada: OISE/UT.
60. Usiskin, Z. (1987). Resolving the continuing dilemmas in school geometry. In M. Lindquist, & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry k-12, 1987 year-book (pp. 17-31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
61. Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.